Enormous utmp since mpsafetty
John Baldwin
jhb at freebsd.org
Fri Aug 29 19:12:33 UTC 2008
On Wednesday 27 August 2008 10:19:40 am Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:50:17 +0100 (BST)
> Robert Watson <rwatson at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> >
> > > According to Gary Jennejohn:
> > >> There are many more pseudo-ttys in /etc/ttys now. AFAIK utmp allocates
an
> > >> entry for every one of them at startup.
> > >
> > > utmp concepts are ancient. It is indexed by the tty/pty number so can
grow
> > > rather large but it should be a sparse one too. I remember talks about
> > > replacing it with something a bit more modern. Backward compatibility
is
> > > assured through login(3) although it would break programs digging in the
> > > utmp file itself. SVR4 had utmp/utmpx and setutline/getutline BTW...
> >
> > Right -- utmp growing to 256K would be an excellent example of utmp format
> > inefficiency. On the other hand, utmp growing to 998M is probably an
example
> > of a bug rather than an inefficient design. freefall.FreeBSD.org, a
> > relatively busy shell box, has a utmp of around 5k, so common use doesn't
> > generally exercise that inefficiency...
> >
>
> But freefall is running FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #34: Sat Apr 12, so it doesn't
> have the new tty stuff running, although I don't suppose that completely
> explains the gigantic utmp which OT reported.
The new pts entries are after all the 256 pty entries in /etc/ttys, so utmp
may be larger becuase the pts entries are "later" in the file (higher
offsets). However, if the file is sparse, then it doesn't actually hurt
anything.
--
John Baldwin
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list