Wietse Venema put forth on 1/31/2010 7:34 PM: > Stan Hoeppner: >>> Better: apply the long-term solution, in the form of the patch below. >>> This undoes the max_idle override (a workaround that I introduced >>> with Postfix 2.3). I already introduced the better solution with >>> Postfix 2.4 while solving a different problem. >> >> I'm not sure if I fully understand this. I'm using 2.5.5, so shouldn't I >> already have the 2.4 solution mentioned above? I must not be reading this >> correctly. > > The patch undoes the Postfix 2.3 change that is responsible for > the shorter-than-expected proxymap lifetimes that you observed > on low-traffic systems. > > With that change backed out, the reduced ipc_idle change from > Postfix 2.4 will finally get a chance to fix the excessive lifetime > of proxymap and trivial-rewrite processes on high-traffic systems.
So, if I understand correctly, these changes made in 2.3 and 2.4 were to get more desirable behavior from proxymap and trivial-rewrite on high traffic systems, and this caused this (very minor) problem on low traffic systems? The patch resolves the low traffic issue, basically reverting to the older code used before said 2.3 changes? And these changes have, through 2.7, given the desired behavior on high-traffic systems? Or no? Your statement "will finally get a chance to..." is future tense. Does this mean the desired behavior for high-traffic systems has not been seen to date? I apologize if this seems a stupid question. The future tense in your statement confuses me. If that _is_ what you mean, future tense, does this mean I have inadvertently played a tiny role in helping you identify a long standing problem/issue? ;) -- Stan
