El mar, 22-11-2011 a las 16:57 +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen escribió: > [José Luis Redrejo Rodríguez] > > As you said in a previous email, in Extremadura we had the same > > problems. With the iddletimeout option they were fixed. You need to > > have many concurrent users to notice the problems ( aprox. more than > > 100), and I guess that's why there are not more people complaining, as > > this concurrency is not very usual. > > Yeah. What value for idletimeout did you use? I've tried 1200 (20 > minutes) and 600 (10 minutes). Am considering going even lower, but am > not trying with 'ulimit -n 8192' to see how that work. > I've used 300 and 600 with good results in both cases. > > Since May we have updated our ldap servers to Squeeze, and we have had > > no problems up to now, with idletimeout=0 . > > Right. Good to hear. Upgrading is an option, but not a very good one > for the installation at the moment. > --
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part