smbwall

[Andrew Bartlett]

Scott Gifford wrote:
> 
> David Lee <t.d.lee at durham.ac.uk> writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > As someone pointed out, pseudo terminals come pretty much in
> > > 2 flavors: BSD & System V.
> >
> > I suspect we may be using loose terminology.  I think the phrase "pseudo
> > terminal" was intended to represent a model of doing things, not
> > necessarily as an real implementation detail.
> 
> I believe that I'm the one that started talking about pseudo
> terminals, and I actually did intend it as an implementation detail.
> 
> They are widely available, mostly portable, easily understood, and
> well-tested.
> 
> You can pretty much copy a couple dozen lines out of Stevens' Advanced
> Programming in the UNIX Environment and have a quite portable
> implementation in an hour or so.

We already have most of this, becouse the 'unix password sync' occurs
over a tty.

> Why would it be a problem to ask admins to create additional
> pseudo-ttys or else not use this feature?  On systems with heavy
> interactive user, I have seen upwards of 1000 pseudo-ttys with no ill
> effects.  There's no significant performance penalty for creating many
> of them, either
> 
> In the traditional UNIX world, each user telnetted into a system and
> was allocated a tty; you had to allocate a tty for each user.  Now,
> users come in via other methods, including filesharing with samba, but
> I don't see a reason why it would be a big deal to still allocate them
> ttys.

A default linux kernel comes with only 256 ttys.  (Can be configured to
whatever number is desired)

-- 
Andrew Bartlett                                 abartlet at pcug.org.au
Manager, Authentication Subsystems, Samba Team  abartlet at samba.org
Student Network Administrator, Hawker College   abartlet at hawkerc.net
http://samba.org     http://build.samba.org     http://hawkerc.net