yes network bandwitch is a problem.....
but that does not explain why all the qmail-remote processes still would
not be there.
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, David Talkington wrote:
> Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:26:12 -0600 (CST)
> From: David Talkington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: qmail help quick!
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Dave Sill wrote:
>
> >Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I am noticing all the mail going into the queue and maybe
> >>10 qmail-remote processes whereas I have 250 set for
> >>concurrencyremote!
> >
> >Could be a lot of things. Have you verified that resource starvation
> >isn't problem? E.g., you've got plenty of CPU cycles going to qmail,
> >adequate RAM, adequate network bandwidth, adequate disk I/O
> >performance...
>
> To wit: we just switched to qmail here at Prairienet, and it's so much
> more efficient than sendmail that disk i/o became the new bottleneck.
> Output of "top" is very helpful ...
>
> - -d
>
> - --
> David Talkington
> Prairienet
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 217-244-1962
>
> PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/dt000823.asc
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGP 6.5.8
> Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6
>
> iQEVAwUBOmUs971ZYOtSwT+tAQE8lQgAlxEsq7Ik/fqMI+FsLnJr5hMGfV855WGw
> ovmAr/yDpSTuwrh1wooJZD+aBU2kgG1qOa4mHfFoc8gVBqhkP7Xa1lt2z+U2AbJg
> +YIbbcFJMxwuo4EmLpXQJ0fnwrcA90UZp157+W0k/TuvzTvYkVpr1t6N6aLjkusw
> JNpvVxMf9KL/ZG8wfPoU++45EAmzNd5hI2vh9Uq1M79Bn94mtVpDuHuFfOTprhaR
> ReF5XtTJtzLQKWw+iCOJYKpe6zWXh+mEahh8mHZodhESiOF+hzTwRd2sUZYNJVse
> 7n+jrldJWrnAezx7Rxvr9tGQmmft0ZEB/zJCTZm1rhcx6opV4ZFiaA==
> =FIPD
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
