Very Computer

Limiting ftp users makes sense for people who are just
graciously providing files for the rest of us.  For example,
it makes perfect sense for Celestial to limit ftp access to
as few people as he wants: he provides that access free of
charge and certainly no one would expect that he'd allow so
many users as to interfere with other use of the machine.

Limiting users also makes sense if you have underpowered
hardware or bandwidth.  In either case, it's better to limit
access than drastically cripple everyone during high demand.

But servers like's SCO's are slightly different.  SCO
provides those ftp files to solve problems in their own
product.  As such, people don't look at it as they might
look at Celestial or other ftp sites where it's gee, thanks
for providing this, but rather as something they've paid for
as part of buying the product.  People like SCO, Microsoft,
Intel, etc. shouldn't be worrying about the impact ftp users
have on the "real" use of the machine- serving the customers
*is* the real use of the machine.

Of course, there is the possibility that 75 users is the
realistic limit imposed by bandwidth or hardware or even the
ftp daemon.  If that's truly the case, somebody needs to fix
that, because a whole bunch of people are suddenly realizing
they need those y2k patches and 75 users at a time isn't
going to cut it.

--

SCO articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.ApLawrence.com

Quote:>I have to say I think that's pretty foolish.

Quote:>Limiting ftp users makes sense for people who are just
>graciously providing files for the rest of us.  For example,
>it makes perfect sense for Celestial to limit ftp access to
>as few people as he wants: he provides that access free of
>charge and certainly no one would expect that he'd allow so
>many users as to interfere with other use of the machine.
>Limiting users also makes sense if you have underpowered
>hardware or bandwidth.  In either case, it's better to limit
>access than drastically cripple everyone during high demand.

Quote:>But servers like's SCO's are slightly different. SCO provides
>those ftp files to solve problems in their own product. ... People
>like SCO, Microsoft, Intel, etc. shouldn't be worrying about the
>impact ftp users have on the "real" use of the machine- serving the
>customers *is* the real use of the machine.
>Of course, there is the possibility that 75 users is the realistic
>limit imposed by bandwidth or hardware or even the ftp daemon. If
>that's truly the case, somebody needs to fix that, because a whole
>bunch of people are suddenly realizing they need those y2k patches
>and 75 users at a time isn't going to cut it.

One site I visited regulary there was 200MB Pentium Pro with 1GB RAM
and limited 'anonymous' user logins to 3000!.   Since they've
upgraded to a 450MHz PII they now permit up to 6000 anonymous
logins at one.  They also hit 1.3TB downloads in one day from one
machine.

For a relatively small amount a month SCO, if they have not done so
already, could place FTP servers at major NAPs and not to have to
worry about bandwidth beyond the connectivity of their local server
to the NAPs architecture.  Typical rack space rent starts at about
$500/month on a typicall 10Mbit link into an OC48 provider, so the
only limit is the server system.

--

I assume you posted this because you all just had 75 accesses to your
site.

S'funny that the ftpaccess man page gives an example of limiting remote
users to 100.  :-)

--
JP

--

SCO articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.ApLawrence.com

Let me try again:  SCO's ftp site, ftp://ftp.sco.com is set
up to allow only 75 users.  It is my opinion that this is
way too low, especially as y2k approaches and everyone who
finally decided that gee, maybe the Unix box needs a patch
has received illumination.

A site like SCO's is not (or should not be, at least) some
machine with other duties that needs to limit its ftp load
in favor of real work.  Its real work is, or again should
be, serving files to SCO customers.  It is extremely hard to
believe that software, hardware or bandwidth constraints
would require this limit; if that IS the case, then somebody
needs a big dope slap.  I suspect it's just oversight, and
maybe nobody has ever *ed about it before.  In any case,
it's foolish, and should be changed asap.

Just my opinion, of course, though it will probably soon be
shared by thousands of folks trying to get their last minute
patches..

--

SCO articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.veryComputer.com/

I'll admit that I didn't quite grasp what you were complaining about.  I
thought you meant that the ftpd binary shipped by SCO in one or more of
its operating systems had a default limit of 75 simultaneous users. So
far as I know, that ain't the case.

Now I understand that you are complaining about ftp.sco.com, but the
East and West Coast sites that ftp.sco.com may take you to may or may
not be running SCO software; I'd bet not. ftp.sco.com is an outsourced
service provided to SCO by Exodus.

--
JP

However, I can appreciate the 160k/sec downloads I get for the less than
5 Mb files that I need off that site, I'm a busy guy and waiting 30
seconds for a 1 Mb file might just suck.  Not!  Yeah, I'm busy, but it's
nothing to start a download and wait in line with 200 others, I can
always do other things in the mean time.  

I say, "Yeah!  Increase the number of allowable connections.  Who cares
about transfer rates unless your downloading a 620 Mb iso image that you
need yesterday.  (not that you'll ever see anything like that on the
server in question)  Even so, I'd much rather start the download
sometime today than have to keep trying to get on all day."

Talk about iso image files, how about one for Skunkware 99?

--
Scott

I guess you still don't grasp the complaint.

I don't give a bleep if the servers are running Microsoft
NT- they shouldn't be limited to 75 users.

--

SCO articles, help, book reviews, tests,
job listings and more : http://www.ApLawrence.com