On 4/2/06 1:13 AM, "John Wang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Also, are there any known problems with Apache::Qpsmtpd aside from not >> working with check_earlytalker. I've read that apache.org uses >> Apache::Qpsmtpd so I assume it's reasonably stable. Is this true? >> > > The post also indicates that Apache::Qpsmtpd won't be materially faster than > forkserver. If so, what's the primary motivation to use Apache::Qpsmtpd if > it won't work with check_earlytalker. >
For me there are metrics and operational procedures that exist for supporting apache in a production environment. I didn't have to build a new set of documentation for support people to track another application on systems. If you have a good startup script for forkserver that sets up the ENV/resources right for limits like tcpserver then you might not gain so much. I had support people restarting forkserver in ad-hoc methods and I needed to short-circuit that process. It was an educational issue. I was able to cross-pollinate applications as apache was already on these systems and it does the resource management already. I don't know that I really miss the check_earlytalker. It probably did drop things that never should make it into the system, but I don't know that most (all?) of that mail got sifted out anyway. If it were to work, I'd put it into service. <grin> peter
