|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: performance issues
From: LaMont Jones (lamont
security.hp.com)Date: Wed Jun 07 2000 - 12:59:57 CDT
- Next message: Franck Martin: "Content filtering"
- Previous message: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen: "Re: ReiserFS was Re: performance statistics"
- In reply to: Wietse Venema: "Re: performance issues"
- Reply: LaMont Jones: "Re: performance issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
> I see no good reason to change the lowest port from 1024, which is
> the lowest unprivileged port number on UNIX.
The only reason I've ever heard that had a hope of making any sense is
that lots and lots of services run on those lower-numbered unprivileged
ports, and it tends to make life more, umm, interesting. Accordingly,
most people moving things tend to move the lower port to up above the
common services...
lamont
- Next message: Franck Martin: "Content filtering"
- Previous message: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen: "Re: ReiserFS was Re: performance statistics"
- In reply to: Wietse Venema: "Re: performance issues"
- Reply: LaMont Jones: "Re: performance issues"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]