On Mon, Dec 24, 2001 at 03:42:52PM -0200, Adriano Nagelschmidt Rodrigues wrote:
> Henning Brauer writes:
> > On Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 04:04:50PM +0000, Dan Melomedman wrote:
> > > Henning Brauer writes:
> > > >> * big-todo
> > > > gains nothing. That's a patch for a very rare very special circumstance.
> > > Could you explain? I am not familiar with the patch, but it should be there
> > > for a reason.
> > It's for the rare situation where you nearly always have a high number of
> > not-yet-preprocessed messages ("high" does not mean a few hundred here!). In
> > normal cisrcumstances it doesn't help at all. More possible slows down
> > things a bit.
> Yes, but how rare are those circumstances?
Extremely.
> After all, Russell Nelson
> must have had a reason to write the patch...
He obviously had such circumstances.
> Could it happen under normal usage? DoS? OS bug (I don't recall
> exactly, but I think I saw it happen w/ Solaris ;-)? Too high a
> tcpserver concurrency?
The latter are admin faults.
Making sure the number of not-yet-preprocessed messages doesn't get such
high is the better idea. For must systems this is equal to a senseful
concurrency setting for the smtpd.
> Sorry to ask again, but do you really think one can do without this
> safety net?
This is no safety net, this is a totally unneeded patch(*). I'd expect it to
slow down operations a bit under normal circumstances.
(*) as long as you don't have these special circumstances.
--
* Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.bsws.de *
* BS Web Services, Roedingsmarkt 14, 20459 Hamburg, Germany *
Unix is very simple, but it takes a genius to understand the simplicity.
(Dennis Ritchie)
