On 1999-Dec-07 07:23:49 +1100, David Wolfskill wrote:
>>Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:13:50 -0800 (PST)
>>From: Matthew Dillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> The actual problem is sendmail's constant *rescanning* of the directory.
Which I forgot about :-(.
>To the extent that the directory is populated, yes. (Scanning an empty
>directory isn't an overwhelmingly resource-intensive operation.)
Not quite. UFS directories only shrink when a new entry is created
and free blocks exist at the end. This means there can be a large
number of emply blocks that need to be scanned. (The worst case
is when all the files in a large directory are deleted - the directory
is empty, but hasn't shrunk).
[domain-specific queue directories]
>I submit that having sendmail use the separate queue directories in this
>fashion is rather more beneficial than post-processing the queue. :-)
It would be interesting to see a comparison of the schemes under
heavy load + failure conditions. I think Matt's approach has the
advantage of needing less tuning.
Peter
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
