Article <uvu1sj$32f3g$1@dont-email.me>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <uvu1sj$32f3g$1@dont-email.me>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<uvu1sj$32f3g$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Rich <rich@example.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: I never thought of this scenario
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 15:16:35 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 17
Message-ID: <uvu1sj$32f3g$1@dont-email.me>
References: <uutq04$2n9pt$1@dont-email.me>   <uuu39t$2pd0s$1@dont-email.me> <uuvblp$32mbm$1@dont-email.me> <uv06o4$3c5fm$2@dont-email.me> <uv09ad$3cnth$1@dont-email.me> <uv2e60$jin$1@dont-email.me> <uv3e7p$7nqq$3@dont-email.me> <uvcu20$2qdb0$3@dont-email.me> <uvd5rs$n3n$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> <uvht5g$3th0n$3@dont-email.me> <uvhv3k$kq3$2@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net> <uvs640$2g9b9$6@dont-email.me> <uvsv9e$3de5$1@news1.tnib.de> <uvtu1d$tkt$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>
Injection-Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:16:35 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fc2f703bddbf91c0a000827304abc24d";
	logging-data="3226736"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18HwzH6PICl0KlwL0AWp9bO"
User-Agent: tin/2.6.1-20211226 ("Convalmore") (Linux/5.15.139 (x86_64))
Cancel-Lock: sha1:M6HMotH3ImXOegD6JlKL9BzY15M=
Bytes: 2082

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
> On 4/19/24 00:26, Marc Haber wrote:
>> The fact that YOUR DHCP server is on the same subnet of your 
>> residential one-subnet setup does NOT mean that this is the case for 
>> all DHCP deployments.
> 
> I absolutely agree.  Though it is proportionally probably one of the 
> most common configurations.  Considering all of the SOHO networks in the 
> world.

Agreed, the number of DHCP servers that exist only on the same subnet 
as their clients likely dwarfs the count of those that serve plural 
subnets across one or more routers.

However our local art-student's binary thinking prevents him from 
understanding that "by far the most common configuration" is not in any 
way equal to "all possible configurations".