I don't think the problem is that they don't care, I think the problem is that the patches get implemented into SVN but the there is no "feature" lock to the svn code for the bugs to get worked out on the base and with so many options finding all of the bugs is just a pain waiting to happen. Having a lot of different ways to run qpsmtpd is nice, but IMHO, having less options that are more stable and robust would be preferred.
One other thing I'd like to add is that big groups like apache.org are running qpsmtpd, it would be nice to know how they have it setup, what patches they have applied, and all that so that the rest of us can get our setups working better and push qpsmtpd as a rock solid, spam fighting, performance oriented solution. Just my .02. On 8/15/07 4:45 PM, "Stefan Priebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm on holiday at the moment. I will send you them - when i'm back in 2 > weeks. > > But would be more luckier, if yome of the devolopers seem to care. Cause > qpsmtpd is a real great program i think... and it should be stable in a > new release and not that buggy as it is... i think this is really sad / > bad or whatever. > > Stefan > > Ed McLain schrieb: >> I'm all for any changes you have. I found most, I think, of the issues on >> our beta system had to do with some of the plugins, not sure though.. If you >> have any patches though I'd be open to trying to them out. I gotta do >> something. We currently have 8 3Ghz ( single cpu/dual core) boxes with 2GB >> of ram running 18-25 connections per second. With prefork I can steadily >> maintain 20 with a load average of 2, w00t. >> >> >> On 8/15/07 4:35 PM, "Stefan Priebe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Hello! >>> >>> But be careful - the 0.40 preforkserver version has MANY MANY BUGS!!! We >>> tried to use it for about 500 servers with over 10 000 connections / 10 >>> minutes - and it wasn't useable at all. >>> >>> We've now changed many lines - in the code and it works well. I've >>> already posts some messages to the list but nobody seems to care - so ... >>> >>> Stefan >>> >>> Fred Moyer schrieb: >>>> Ed McLain wrote: >>>>> I actually did a full testing of qpsmtpd-apache vs forkserver when I >>>>> first >>>>> started building this cluster and the apache version just had way to much >>>>> overhead. Basically it couldn't handle the connections per second we >>>>> were >>>>> throwing it. I asked the list for some help at that time, as I was >>>>> thinking >>>>> my config could be off, but never really got any. I've got a test box >>>>> going >>>>> with 0.40 and the pre-fork server now and it seems much better. >>>> Oh cool, good to know. I looked through the changes for 0.40 and didn't >>>> make the distinction between forkserver and pre-fork server until I read >>>> your response. Time for me to upgrade to 0.40! >> > -- Ed McLain
