On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
> What was your memory usage? What was your disk i/o like? Bandwidth to
> the net? Could be any number of things.
>
> Anything in your regular system logs during that time that might provide a
> clue?
I was not thrashing. I beleive I had 400M of free memory. I am not sure
about the disk i/o. bandwidth to the net was plentiful. My queue is on a
local disk but the actual user mail boxes are on a NFS drive.
Nothing extraordinary in the logs.
> On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, B. Engineer wrote:
>
> > Hello:
> > Yesterday was the first time I got to test my qmail system with
> > the big to-do patch applied.
> >
> > Problem:
> > Some $%^* hijacked a T1 line somewhere and started spamming using a
> > return address that points to my system. The sheer number of bounces
> > generated, slows legitimate mail down on my system by 6 hrs.
> >
> > I had applied the big to-do patch in hopes of fixing that. My local
> > concurrency is set to 40 and remote to 120. I had 4000 messages in my
> > mail queue but qmail was not delivering mail for about 3 hrs. I had about
> > 45 qmail-queue processes. The machine had plenty of juice, the load av.
> > never shot up over 1.5-2.0.
> > Local/Remote concurrency never shot up, logs showed a max of
> > 2/40 and 6/120.
> >
> > Can anyone explain this? I want qmail to chew/hog the cpu and deliver the
> > mail. What am I forgetting to tune??
> >
> > Thanks
> > Burzin
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------
> Timothy L. Mayo mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Senior Systems Administrator
> localconnect(sm)
> http://www.localconnect.net/
>
> The National Business Network Inc. http://www.nb.net/
> One Monroeville Center, Suite 850
> Monroeville, PA 15146
> (412) 810-8888 Phone
> (412) 810-8886 Fax
>
