I think this has gotten off-topic. I am going to go back and respond
to the original posting.
When I was doing BEST Internet we had very similar problems with our
mail servers. We were constantly cpu-bound. I was constantly fiddling
with it (sendmail in this case). For mon
Christopher Weimann wrote:
> Not intended as a slight against DJB ( althought I do realize it
> looked that way ). I LOVE qmail, look at my headers.
>
> But DJB does not introduce any of Terry's "network effects".
Sure he does.
By not integrating the patches, he ends up with many patches
sittin
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 11:31:33PM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >
> > But DJB does't maintain his code. I don't think it he has touched
> > it in years.
>
> He maintains his code quite well. Thing is he only changes something
> if there is something to change. In the case of qmail-1.03 this
> On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:52:09PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that as you maintain your patches, and the patch
> > vendor maintains their patches, and DJB maintains his code, you
> > end up with network effects.
> >
>
> But DJB does't maintain his code. I don't think
On Mon, May 20, 2002 at 12:52:09PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
>
> The problem is that as you maintain your patches, and the patch
> vendor maintains their patches, and DJB maintains his code, you
> end up with network effects.
>
But DJB does't maintain his code. I don't think it he has touche
Adrian Filipi-Martin wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > "Karsten W. Rohrbach" wrote:
> > > Brandon D. Valentine([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.05.17 14:48:07 +:
> > > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Doug White wrote:
> > > > >You are welcome to rewrite qmail to use kqueue if you wish :)
>
On Sat, 18 May 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> "Karsten W. Rohrbach" wrote:
> > Brandon D. Valentine([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.05.17 14:48:07 +:
> > > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Doug White wrote:
> > > >You are welcome to rewrite qmail to use kqueue if you wish :)
> > >
> > > Although if I read the lice
--- Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -- Hiten Pandya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just wondering, are these the kind of problems which can be solved by
> > using the kqueue(2) mechanism, or am I talking nuts again?
> >
> > Regards.
>
> Yes, kqueue solves it nicely. I overestimated th
Hiten Pandya wrote:
> --- Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still
> > suffers from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries
> > to shut down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause transient load
> > aver
"Karsten W. Rohrbach" wrote:
> Brandon D. Valentine([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.05.17 14:48:07 +:
> > On Fri, 17 May 2002, Doug White wrote:
> > >You are welcome to rewrite qmail to use kqueue if you wish :)
> >
> > Although if I read the license correctly you hand djb a contract for
> > your soul
Brandon D. Valentine([EMAIL PROTECTED])@2002.05.17 14:48:07 +:
> On Fri, 17 May 2002, Doug White wrote:
>
> >You are welcome to rewrite qmail to use kqueue if you wish :)
>
> Although if I read the license correctly you hand djb a contract for
> your soul and first born child if you do. ;-)
On Fri, 17 May 2002, Doug White wrote:
>You are welcome to rewrite qmail to use kqueue if you wish :)
Although if I read the license correctly you hand djb a contract for
your soul and first born child if you do. ;-)
Brandon D. Valentine
--
"Time to resign from the human race, wipe those tear
On Thu, 16 May 2002, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> --- Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still
> > suffers from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries
> > to shut down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause t
--- Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still
> suffers from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries
> to shut down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause transient load
> average spikes - this can be a bit
* Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020516 17:12] wrote:
[snip about select collisions]
>
> FreeBSD's "bug" is is twofold:
> 1) we can only track one process selecting on a shared fd at one time, and
> 2) we never deregister selects.
Actually I think I did #2 under 5.x with 'sys_generic.c:clear_s
Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> * Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020516 15:41] wrote:
> >
> > The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still suffers
> > from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries to shut
> > down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause t
* Peter Wemm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [020516 15:41] wrote:
>
> The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still suffers
> from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries to shut
> down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause transient load average
> spikes - t
Doug White wrote:
> qmail is also very inefficient when it comes to large delivery -- the fork
> per message and the qmail-remote trigger-hitting will eventually
> bottleneck you. It's probable you've run into it. My sympathies. :) You
> might try *dropping* concurrencyremote somewhat to reduce
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 02:53:49PM -0700, Doug White wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2002, Omar Thameen wrote:
>
> Can you post a netstat -m from now? It will have the peak values in it.
1484/2016/34816 mbufs in use (current/peak/max):
914 mbufs allocated to data
64 mbufs allocated to p
On Wed, 15 May 2002, Omar Thameen wrote:
> > First off, what are the specs of the server? Cpu? Disk? Memory? Network?
> > You mention it's a dual 800MHz. What kind of NIC does it have? What is the
> > speed and duplex set to on it?
>
> Dual PIII/800
> 2G SDRAM
> 2x18G IBM 10,000 rpm SCSI drives,
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 09:25:21PM -0700, Doug White wrote:
> Mmm, mail server tuning, something I have some experience in :-)
Just what I was hoping to hear!
> First off, what are the specs of the server? Cpu? Disk? Memory? Network?
> You mention it's a dual 800MHz. What kind of NIC does it hav
Doug White wrote:
> qmail is also very inefficient when it comes to large delivery -- the fork
> per message and the qmail-remote trigger-hitting will eventually
> bottleneck you. It's probable you've run into it. My sympathies. :) You
> might try *dropping* concurrencyremote somewhat to reduce t
Mmm, mail server tuning, something I have some experience in :-)
First off, what are the specs of the server? Cpu? Disk? Memory? Network?
You mention it's a dual 800MHz. What kind of NIC does it have? What is the
speed and duplex set to on it?
Secondly, what period was your vmstat run over? The
23 matches
Mail list logo
