Performance and cheap storage

[Henrique de Moraes Holschuh]

On Mon, 07 Aug 2006, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 12:15 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> > > I think David is missing the issue: it's the proxied connection which is
> > > problematic, not the connection to the client.  this locks the IP
> > > addresses to the frontend's and the backend's, and the port on the
> > > backend side is always 143 (or whatever you prefer), so the only
> > > variable part of the tuple is the port number on the frontend.  this
> > > restricts a frontend to 65k connections to each backend.
> > 
> > Not if the two hosts are capable of TCP timestamps, AFAIK.
> 
> I'm afraid I don't see the relevance, please explain.

I was under the impression that at least Linux could use the timestamps to
allow more than 64k connections from a single host.  I was looking at the
reference where I got this from, but I could not locate it, so it is
possible I am just being terribly confused.

-- 
  "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
  them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
  where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
  Henrique Holschuh