* Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010211 05:30] wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, we found (at Yahoo) that excessively large listen
> queues tend to cause more problems than they solve. The circumstances are
> probably different, but we found that on one particular application, a
> queue of 10 was
* Jonathan Lemon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010212 06:46] wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:55:16AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> > The sysctl for somaxconn is an int, however the queue limits in the
> > socket structures are 'short' this can cause some bad behavior if
> > one sets somaxconn to mo
On Sun, Feb 11, 2001 at 01:55:16AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> The sysctl for somaxconn is an int, however the queue limits in the
> socket structures are 'short' this can cause some bad behavior if
> one sets somaxconn to more than 32k.
>
> A) So, do we bump the sockets to use 'int' for so
* Garrett Wollman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010211 10:29] wrote:
> < said:
>
> > A) So, do we bump the sockets to use 'int' for so->so_qlimit?
>
> Make it be `u_short'. (Actually, I'm not sure why all three of those
> members aren't unsigned. It would make more sense that way.)
This still gives mi
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010211 01:55] wrote:
> > The sysctl for somaxconn is an int, however the queue limits in the
> > socket structures are 'short' this can cause some bad behavior if
> > one sets somaxconn to more than 32k.
> >
> > A) So, do we bump
* Alfred Perlstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010211 01:55] wrote:
> The sysctl for somaxconn is an int, however the queue limits in the
> socket structures are 'short' this can cause some bad behavior if
> one sets somaxconn to more than 32k.
>
> A) So, do we bump the sockets to use 'int' for so->so_
