Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 2.1.16: "default_client_count" written to the logs
Le 23 avr. 2013 à 12:37, Timo Sirainen a écrit : > On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 14:07 +0200, Axel Luttgens wrote: >> Hello, >> >> [...] >> Shouldn't it read "default_client_limit" instead of "default_client_count"? > > Yes, fixed. Thanks, Timo. >> It seems that the warning is written only when reloading Dovecot, not upon >> Dovecot's startup. >> Is this deliberate? > > At startup it only goes to stderr, which I guess your init script hides. Indeed, stdout/stderr are ignored by default for daemons started by launchd (one could specify file paths for those outputs, at the expense of some fds). > Although it would be nice if it logged it also.. I'll see about changing > that. Probably not a high priority one, but... yes, would be nice to have such warnings logged as well at startup. Best regards, Axel
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot 2.1.16: "default_client_count" written to the logs
On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 14:07 +0200, Axel Luttgens wrote: > Hello, > > As to be expected with low system limits, a warning may be written to the > logs: > master: Warning: fd limit (ulimit -n) is lower than required under > max. load (256 < 1000), because of default_client_count > Shouldn't it read "default_client_limit" instead of "default_client_count"? Yes, fixed. > It seems that the warning is written only when reloading Dovecot, not upon > Dovecot's startup. > Is this deliberate? At startup it only goes to stderr, which I guess your init script hides. Although it would be nice if it logged it also.. I'll see about changing that.
[Dovecot] Dovecot 2.1.16: "default_client_count" written to the logs
Hello, As to be expected with low system limits, a warning may be written to the logs: master: Warning: fd limit (ulimit -n) is lower than required under max. load (256 < 1000), because of default_client_count Shouldn't it read "default_client_limit" instead of "default_client_count"? It seems that the warning is written only when reloading Dovecot, not upon Dovecot's startup. Is this deliberate? Thanks, Axel