Am 17.06.2009 um 14:47 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
afaik, 1024 is not a limit, it's the dictionary size. It can grow
past it.
yep, it's just hint for dictionary...
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 17/06/2009, at 14:43, Vincent CHAVANIS wrote:
ok +1 for me too,
But why limiting to 1024 ?
Should be better to check if defined NR_OPEN ?
Vincent.
Alejandro Guerrieri a écrit :
Ok, fair enough. +1 then :)
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 17/06/2009, at 12:48, Alexander Malysh wrote:
Am 17.06.2009 um 12:38 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
I mean, someone hitting the url at a high rate.
this limit was never there and I think it's out of kannel scope.
Use iptables/firewall etc. to limit it.
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 17/06/2009, at 12:26, Alexander Malysh wrote:
Am 17.06.2009 um 12:14 schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri:
What'd happen if someone hammers the port? Shouldn't be some
sort of limit anyway?
how it should be possible to hammer server port? this is
_server_ part and user has to configure
http ports.
+ if (n == 0 ||gwlist_len(new_server_sockets) > 0) {
misssing a space on "||gwlist_len"
fixed, thanks ;)
Regards,
--
Alejandro Guerrieri
[email protected]
On 17/06/2009, at 12:07, Alexander Malysh wrote:
Hi,
attached patch removes max server limit from http server
implementation.
Any objections against commiting to CVS?
Thanks,
Alex
<http-max-server.diff>
--
Telemaque - 06560 SOPHIA-ANTIPOLIS - (FR)
Service Technique/Reseau - NOC
Direction du Developpement xMS+
http://www.telemaque.fr/
[email protected]
Tel : +33 4 92 90 99 84 (fax 9142)
