--On 23 February 2009 12:13:07 +0000 Graeme Fowler <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:45 +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: >> So, Exim's limit isn't reached on my machines, but nevertheless the >> limit needs revisiting for those who don't have my problem. Marc's >> right. The limit is too low for modern hardware. > > ...to which the followup question is: what is a suitable limit for > modern hardware and OS combinations? > > To expand a little on your OSX limits, should Exim be checking on OSX > that it never spawns more than 2499 processes (queue runners, delivery > processes, inbound handlers and so on)? Should it factor OS variations > at all, or should they simply be documented? It's not necessary to place a limit in OSX. I can do that with launchd limits. What I set it to will depend on the other things that I'm using the server for. > What should be done to compare, say, Postfix / Sendmail et al? > > Most of these are (IMO) fairly rhetorical questions based on the fact > that the following one-line change moves the goalposts: > > --- daemon.c.orig 2009-02-23 12:08:25.000000000 +0000 > +++ daemon.c 2009-02-23 12:08:40.000000000 +0000 > @@ -1199,3 +1199,3 @@ > > - if (smtp_accept_max > 4095) smtp_accept_max = 4096; > + if (smtp_accept_max > 16383) smtp_accept_max = 16384; > > But the first question stands: what value should be chosen? Or should > there simply *not be* an upper limit, so people can skewer themselves if > they choose an insane value for smtp_accept_max? Well, I already can launch enough SMTP processes to hose my server, unfortunately! I don't see why there should be a limit, but there should be a sensible value in the default config file, and a note to caution that Exim will launch up to smtp_accept_max processes. > Graeme -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex x3148 -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
