From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: SOMAXCONN too low Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:47:07 +0100 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20031029204707.67f9a2e1.ak@suse.de> References: <200310290658.h9T6w04k015302@napali.hpl.hp.com> <20031029105809.0a1f27a1.davem@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: davidm@hpl.hp.com, davidm@napali.hpl.hp.com, netdev@oss.sgi.com Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20031029105809.0a1f27a1.davem@redhat.com> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 10:58:09 -0800 "David S. Miller" wrote: > On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:58:00 -0800 > David Mosberger wrote: > > > You obviously want some control over how big the listen queue can > > grow, but it seems to me that a sysctl would be in place. I found > > this patch to do that, but no reaction to it: > > > > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0205.0/1287.html > > I think I'm going to apply this patch. > > People can then set the limit to what they want, the default > stays at 128, and the SOMAXCONN define itself does not change. > > Ok David? Can I respectfully ask to name the sysctl net/core/somaxconn ? That is the name used in the SuSE/UL kernels and has been shipping for some time and already has a big user base, and there is no reason to break compatibility for them. Thanks, -Andi