On Tue, 22 Mar 2005, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2005 at 05:32:21PM +0500, Ian Zagorskih wrote:
> >
> > During last two days i have problems while trying to access anoncvs like
> > below:
> >
> > # pwd
> > /usr/xsrc
> > # cvs up -dP
> > ssh_exchange_identification: Connection closed by remote host
> > cvs [update aborted]: end of file from server (consult above messages if
> > any)
>
> The server permits about 100 simultaneous connections.  In recent weeks
> we have had repeated problems with single client machines making as many
> as a dozen connections at once.  Somehow some of our users seem to have
> decided that it's not just acceptable but actually good standard practice
> to fire off several cvs update processes in parallel.  Of course this
> actually will be slower for them _and_ block access to the server for
> other users; it's not just greedy, it's stupid too.
>
> We are working on automatically blocking access to the server from hosts
> that repeatedly make multiple simultaneous connections (because of the
> way the service is implemented, it's difficult to enforce a single
> connection limit in realtime).  For the moment, we're blocking such hosts
> by hand as we notice them, which is not always good enough to keep more
> responsible users from having trouble like you describe above.

It might be people behind some NAT router, you know... So maybe not one
person doing something in parallell (is that even meaningful?) but several
people at different places, all looking as the same site from the outside.

	Johnny

Johnny Billquist                  || "I'm on a bus
                                  ||  on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt@update.uu.se           ||  Reading murder books
pdp is alive!                     ||  tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol