Re: FW: Connections Slow with LVS

2001-06-20 Thread Charles Cazabon

Mehul Choksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Many Thanks Charles, I used -H, -l localname with tcpserver and it works
> fine even with the LVS.

Good.

> For the remote concurrency, what I meant to ask was " is it okay to set the
> remote concurrency to 254 without the patch or will I run in to issues later
> on when it really needs those concurrencies?"

Sure, set it at 254.  You'll probably never need anything higher.  On one
qmail box here, we send 3 messages a day and rarely get above a remote
concurrency of 10.

Charles
-- 
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---



FW: Connections Slow with LVS

2001-06-20 Thread Mehul Choksi

Many Thanks Charles, I used -H, -l localname with tcpserver and it works
fine even with the LVS.

For the remote concurrency, what I meant to ask was " is it okay to set the
remote concurrency to 254 without the patch or will I run in to issues later
on when it really needs those concurrencies?"

Regards,
Mehul
Mehul Choksi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> any ideas  why qmail with the Linux Virtual Server takes so long
> for the connection even with the tcpserver -R and -t 0??

There are other data-gathering options to tcpserver.  This is FAQ#1.

> Also, I have not yet applied the big-concurrency patch (I always run in to
> trouble with that patch..!!), and yet I have set the concurrencyremote to
> 254. So far it is doing good, but not sure if it is okay. Any suggestion?

Very, very few sites need concurrency > 255.  Skip the patch until you
determine you really do need it.

Charles
--
---
Charles Cazabon<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
GPL'ed software available at:  http://www.qcc.sk.ca/~charlesc/software/
Any opinions expressed are just that -- my opinions.
---