-On my Intel system, every user needs 1104 bytes (`struct conn').
-When a user has a file transfer, an additional 324 bytes (`struct ftran')
-would be needed, or 1428 bytes per user in total. In addition, you have
-some `startup costs', of course. `ps' (again on my system) reports a
-startup memory usage of 432 kB (RSS, I don't know enough about memory
-to know if this is a realistic number ;-) ), compared to 484 kB for a
-single wu-ftpd session (again RSS). To be honest, I don't think BetaFTPD
-uses much memory. [Note that this information is a bit old -- I haven't
-tested it lately; expect 2-300 bytes extra per user.]
-
-Oh, while we're at it: A 486 running BetaFTPD will easily be able to
-saturate a T1 line, with room to spare. The bottleneck will most likely
-lie somewhere else (like the bandwidth, or how fast the disk can deliver
-data). Unless you've got a 386 running gigabit, of course... (I must
-admit, I've never really tried it with more than 100Mbit/sec, but the
-problem then was clearly on the client machine ;-) BetaFTPD has later
-shown itself to be more than able of saturating a 10mbit link in real-
-world tests, with about 3% CPU utilization (PII/450MHz, IDE disks all
-the way, about 2GB of files in all, 7-8 users at once).)
-
-Recent load tests (see http://www.kegel.com/dkftpbench/results.html)
-show that a P90 is able to serve about 250 clients (each at 28.800-speeds)
-on a 10Mbit line.
+On my Intel system, every user needs 1104 bytes (`struct conn'). When a user
+has a file transfer, an additional 324 bytes (`struct ftran') would be needed,
+or 1428 bytes per user in total. In addition, you have some `startup costs', of
+course. `ps' (again on my system) reports a startup memory usage of 432 kB
+(RSS, I don't know enough about memory to know if this is a realistic number
+;-) ), compared to 484 kB for a single wu-ftpd session (again RSS). To be
+honest, I don't think BetaFTPD uses much memory. [Note that this information is
+a bit old -- I haven't tested it lately; expect 2-300 bytes extra per user.]
+
+Oh, while we're at it: A 486 running BetaFTPD will easily be able to saturate a
+T1 line, with room to spare. The bottleneck will most likely lie somewhere else
+(like the bandwidth, or how fast the disk can deliver data). Unless you've got
+a 386 running gigabit, of course... (I must admit, I've never really tried it
+with more than 100Mbit/sec, but the problem then was clearly on the client
+machine ;-) BetaFTPD has later shown itself to be more than able of saturating
+a 10mbit link in real- world tests, with about 3% CPU utilization (PII/450MHz,
+IDE disks all the way, about 2GB of files in all, 7-8 users at once).)
+
+Recent load tests (see http://www.kegel.com/dkftpbench/results.html) show that
+a P90 is able to serve about 250 clients (each at 28.800-speeds) on a 10Mbit
+line.