Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
Hi, On 06/06/2012 10:24 PM, Pascal BERTON wrote: > Well, not a big deal, it effectively works fine with 3833… > > BTW, I’ve often seen references to a value of 3389 for it. Any reason > for that ? Just a legacy value that DRBD users forgot to update ? Or is > there any other reason for that ? > it's supposedly works best with prime numbers, and 3389 happens to be the largest one in the supported range (?) Cheers, Felix