This my friend so far seems to be the answer. I'm using Bruce Guentner's
qlogtools, qfilelog and this is the first time I've seen my
concurrentremote's fill up to its limit. I'm currently pumping out about
100 - 150 emails a second, at least from watching the qstat.
Thanks
-jeremy
> Syslog is crap. Pure junk, it takes 100% CPU when the log gets larger then
> 50 megs. I have NOT taken mine off because I'm plain out too lazy. BUT if
> you notice your box is being raped by something and you think it's qmail,
> trust me it's not, it's syslogd. Now I've only seen this on a RH install of
> Linux. So if you're having speed problems on big mailling lists or sending
> to many users locally, get rid of syslogd. If you want to see it rape your
> box in real time, create a quick list of 10000 junk email address (local to
> you), and send a piece of mail to it, do a 'top', and watch syslog sit at a
> 100% CPU.
>
> Get cyclog (as far as I know it will fix this problem, although again I have
> not tested it, yet). Or some other syslogd replacement (for linux users, hit
> www.freshmeat.net).
>
> Hope this helps whoever needs it.
>
>
> Reid Sutherland
> Network Administrator
> ISYS Technology Inc.
> http://www.isys.ca
> Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Reid Sutherland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 9:54 AM
> Subject: Re: *sigh* performance issues again. Please help!
>
>
> >
> > Woah! I think you may be on to something. I just shut syslog off and I'm
> > watching the queue and it did about 300 messages in about 20 seconds.
> >
> > Please tell me which syslog replacement you're talking about, cause I all
> > see if daemontools and cyclog.
> >
> > -jeremy
> >
> > >
> > > This is Linux. I was unaware of djb's syslog replacement. Are you
> > > talking about cyclog?
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > -jeremy
> > >
> > > > It is qmail that's taking time to do the email or is syslogd raping
> your
> > > > box?
> > > > If you have any sort of logging going through syslogd from qmail,
> syslogd
> > > > will rape your box, not qmail. Get DJBs syslogd replacement and it
> should
> > > > fix your problem. Btw what OS you running?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Reid Sutherland
> > > > Network Administrator
> > > > ISYS Technology Inc.
> > > > http://www.isys.ca
> > > > Fingerprint: 1683 001F A573 B6DF A074 0C96 DBE0 A070 28BE EEA5
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 1999 11:51 AM
> > > > Subject: *sigh* performance issues again. Please help!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't know why or what's wrong, but I'll tell you what I'm seeing.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have vanilla qmail, with the big todo patch installed and split
> boosted
> > > > > up to 231. Smtp is receiving about 150,000 emails a day and it's
> taking
> > > > > qmail about 24 hours to get through this amount of mail.
> > > > >
> > > > > The group of people this mail list and mail server affects claims
> that
> > > > > sendmail did this list in about 5 - 6 hours. I refuse to believe
> that
> > > > > sendmail's performance in this can beat qmail. From my past I've
> seen
> > > > > qmail handle this load with no problem.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm running out of options. I'd like to see qmail do well here, but
> > > > > unless it starts really doing something major, I'll have to slap
> sendmail
> > > > > back on there to make them happy. Please give me some magic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > -jeremy
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > ---------------------------------------------
> > > Y2K. We're all gonna die.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Y2K. We're all gonna die.
> >
> >
>
http://www.xxedgexx.com | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------
Y2K. We're all gonna die.
