From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 0/9] Network receive deadlock prevention for NBD Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 17:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20060812.174607.44371641.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060812084713.GA29523@2ka.mipt.ru> <1155374390.13508.15.camel@lappy> <20060812093706.GA13554@2ka.mipt.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, riel@redhat.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, phillips@google.com Return-path: Received: from dsl027-180-168.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.27.180.168]:19101 "EHLO sunset.davemloft.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932621AbWHMAps (ORCPT ); Sat, 12 Aug 2006 20:45:48 -0400 To: johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru In-Reply-To: <20060812093706.GA13554@2ka.mipt.ru> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org From: Evgeniy Polyakov Date: Sat, 12 Aug 2006 13:37:06 +0400 > Does it? I though it is possible to only have 64k of working sockets per > device in TCP. Where does this limit come from? You think there is something magic about 64K local ports, but if remote IP addresses in the TCP socket IDs are all different, number of possible TCP sockets is only limited by "number of client IPs * 64K" and ram :-)