On Aug 17 2000, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> The harm is in the increased complexity of the queue itself, and in
> the programs that manage and access it. Increased complexity costs
> in reliability, security, and resources consumed.
As far as I can see (but I may be wrong here), there's no
increased complexity. Just change a function in qmail-send.c
and your new version of qmail, with a different retry schedule
is there, brand spanking new.
The function's name is nextretry (and it is quite short).
BUT, before changing qmail's retry schedule, please read the
comments that Dan has put on THOUGHTS (which I reproduce
below).
BTW, Dan, where could I read more about optimal schedules? I'm
particularly interested in learning more about the following
paragraph of yours (I'm not very experienced on Statistics,
but I'm willing to learn more about it):
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mathematical amusement: The optimal retry schedule is essentially,
though not exactly, independent of the actual distribution of message
delay times. What really matters is how much cost you assign to retries
and to particular increases in latency. qmail's current quadratic retry
schedule says that an hour-long delay in a day-old message is worth the
same as a ten-minute delay in an hour-old message; this doesn't seem so
unreasonable.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Any references would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for any information, Roger...
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Rogerio Brito - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/
Nectar homepage: http://www.linux.ime.usp.br/~rbrito/nectar/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
