Patrick Morris wrote:
> Unless I'm misunderstanding what your procmail recipes are doing,
> it's *alread* been hacked into Sendmail.
Not exactly, there are a few load-based controls on *some* aspects of
sendmail's processing...
> From a sendmail.cf file I've got lying around:
> # load average at
Kris Deugau wrote:
I found that even this wasn't lightweight enough on the filter server
I'm adminning, so I wrote a microprogram to use the load average
instead. Ideally, this should be hacked into sendmail itself in some
way; I'm not going there myself. I *might* poke it into procmail if I
ge
Simon Byrnand wrote:
> I imagine it would, however single threaded delivery mode just isn't
> an option for any kind of real world use. Until such time as sendmail
> implements a *proper* local delivery concurency setting, my method
> works very well...
IIRC, you posted this method seom time ago-
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Since I use sendmail, which unfortunately doesn't have a proper way to
> limit local delivery concurancy, I'm now using a combination approach - I
> use -m 15, and return EX_TEMPFAIL for more than 40 simultaneous local
> delivery processes.
When sendmai
At 20:43 20/10/2003 -0500, David B Funk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Since I use sendmail, which unfortunately doesn't have a proper way to
> limit local delivery concurancy, I'm now using a combination approach - I
> use -m 15, and return EX_TEMPFAIL for more than 40 simulta
At 21:57 19/10/2003 -0500, Robert A. Hayden wrote:
I'm wondering if maybe this should be default on new versions of SA? Set
it by default for, say 25. The user can then set it higher or lower as
needed, or to "0" for unlimited.
Just a thought?
Arguably its a fault of the MTA for allowing an unlim
I'm wondering if maybe this should be default on new versions of SA? Set
it by default for, say 25. The user can then set it higher or lower as
needed, or to "0" for unlimited.
Just a thought?
I set both of my spamd machines to -m25 (about 40k messages/wk, 80% spam)
and that works fine. Bo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dan Wilder writes:
>On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:21:52AM +, Daniel M. Drucker wrote:
>> > Yes, the situation I'm talking about is lots of spamd processes running at
>> > once using lots of memory. (Not to mention the local delivery processes
>> > ru
> Have you tried starting spamd with the "-m" flag to limit
> the number of copies?
Yes, I have -m 10. It doesn't seem to have any effect.
> How much RAM are you using?
Unfortunately, I wasn't keeping track. Now I am: http://3e.org/perf/
I'm hoping this'll happen again soon so I can actually se
At Sun Oct 19 10:45:41 2003, Simon Byrnand wrote:
> Well, the only problem is that you're allowing too many spamd's to run at
> once. "40 or 50" is *WAY* too many. Even on our server with 1GB of ram I
> don't allow it to run more than about 30 spamd's at once.
>
> Probably all thats happening is
>> Yes, the situation I'm talking about is lots of spamd processes running
>> at
>> once using lots of memory. (Not to mention the local delivery processes
>> running at the same time as well)
>>
>> Spamd using 800MB of ram is a bug, and one which I've never encountered
>> yet in months of using sp
On Sun, Oct 19, 2003 at 12:21:52AM +, Daniel M. Drucker wrote:
> > Yes, the situation I'm talking about is lots of spamd processes running at
> > once using lots of memory. (Not to mention the local delivery processes
> > running at the same time as well)
> >
> > Spamd using 800MB of ram is a b
> Yes, the situation I'm talking about is lots of spamd processes running at
> once using lots of memory. (Not to mention the local delivery processes
> running at the same time as well)
>
> Spamd using 800MB of ram is a bug, and one which I've never encountered
> yet in months of using spamd, so i
13 matches
Mail list logo
