Message218135
| Author | neologix |
|---|
| Recipients | neologix, pitrou, sbt, vstinner |
|---|
| Date | 2014-05-08.23:02:01 |
|---|
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
|---|
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
|---|
| Message-id | <CAH_1eM3qYfma8sqqqJm4eqWkGxoXj5Z-vpa_LwGnqhESzdAvyw@mail.gmail.com> |
|---|
| In-reply-to | <1399587147.75.0.361825533101.issue21455@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
|---|
| Content |
|---|
> Is there a risk of SOMAXCONN being huge and therefore allocating a large amount of resources?On a sensible operating system, no, but better safe than sorry: thepatch attached caps the value to 128 (a common SOMAXCONN value).It should be high enough to avoid connection drops in commonworkloads, and still guard against non-sensical SOMAXCONN values. |
| 
➜