Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
> "Jacques WERNERT" wrote: > > Hello, > > I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by > qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've > defined (verified by chkspawn). > > I'm running Solaris 7 U60&U80. > > Thanx for any help They may have bounced and hence be in the queue for redelivery at a later date ? Greg > > Frip'
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Unadulterated logs files will say. Why not show us a relevant sample of your logs give us a chance at answering your question? Regards. On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:34:46PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by qmail-qstat) and I >don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've defined (verified by chkspawn). > > I'm running Solaris 7 U60&U80. > > Thanx for any help > > Frip'
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
"Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by >qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've >defined (verified by chkspawn). I answered this yesterday. Check the list archives. -Dave
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Hello, thanx all for replying so quickly In fact I've a "huge site" qmail configuration. I've applied several patches like the "big todo" and "big concurrency". So I've set concurrencyremote to 2045. the host running qmail is acting as an internal mail relay to deliver mail to subscribers. (no spam :) ) While watching the output of qmail-qstat I can see the queue with a lot of messages about 200 to 500, mail unprocessed almost around 0 but I can't see more than 20 to 50 qmail-remote processes running. I saw one day 540 qmail-remote running. So it's possible :) Thanx for any help Regards Frip' - Original Message - From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:41 PM Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ... > Unadulterated logs files will say. Why not show us a relevant sample > of your logs give us a chance at answering your question? > > > Regards. > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:34:46PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've defined (verified by chkspawn). > > > > I'm running Solaris 7 U60&U80. > > > > Thanx for any help > > > > Frip'
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Hello Federico, I'm running Sun E220 and E420 with 2 and 4 processors. I've applied the patch available on http://qmail.org/big-concurrency.patch and my /etc/system file too. Frip' - Original Message - From: "Federico Edelman Anaya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:18 PM Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ... > What hardware do you have? how do you set the concurrency remote at 2045?? I am > only set 509 :( > > "Jacques WERNERT" wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > thanx all for replying so quickly > > > > In fact I've a "huge site" qmail configuration. > > I've applied several patches like the "big todo" and "big concurrency". So > > I've set concurrencyremote to 2045. > > > > the host running qmail is acting as an internal mail relay to deliver mail > > to subscribers. (no spam :) ) > > > > While watching the output of qmail-qstat I can see the queue with a lot of > > messages about 200 to 500, mail unprocessed almost around 0 but I can't see > > more than 20 to 50 qmail-remote processes running. > > > > I saw one day 540 qmail-remote running. So it's possible :) > > > > Thanx for any help > > Regards > > > > Frip' > > > > - Original Message - > > From: "Mark Delany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 6:41 PM > > Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ... > > > > > Unadulterated logs files will say. Why not show us a relevant sample > > > of your logs give us a chance at answering your question? > > > > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 18, 2001 at 06:34:46PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by > > qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've defined > > (verified by chkspawn). > > > > > > > > I'm running Solaris 7 U60&U80. > > > > > > > > Thanx for any help > > > > > > > > Frip' >
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
"Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by >qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've >defined (verified by chkspawn). One obvious possibility is that the messages in the queue failed temporarily on their previous delivery attempt and qmail-send is just waiting for their retry time to roll around. -Dave
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Hello, thanx for your reply. Can you tell me much more about that please? Regards Frip' - Original Message - From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ... > "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by > >qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've > >defined (verified by chkspawn). > > One obvious possibility is that the messages in the queue failed > temporarily on their previous delivery attempt and qmail-send is just > waiting for their retry time to roll around. > > -Dave
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
"Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Can you tell me much more about that please? > >From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by >> >qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've >> >defined (verified by chkspawn). >> >> One obvious possibility is that the messages in the queue failed >> temporarily on their previous delivery attempt and qmail-send is just >> waiting for their retry time to roll around. Sure. Sometimes when you send a message to an address on a remote system, the first attempt may not succeed due to a problem that it considered temporary, either by the remote site or by the SMTP protocol. For example, if you're sending a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], and your qmail can look up the address of joesdomain.com in the DNS but it isn't able to connect to its port 25, that's considered a temporary problem. Rather than immediately throwing up its hands and bouncing the message back to the sender, qmail (and other MTA's) keeps the message in its queue and tries periodically to send it. If, after five days (by default), the message is still undelivered, qmail bounces it as permanently undeliverable. -Dave
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Hello, in fact I trying to know why I can see sometimes 100 qmail-remote processes and sometimes only 10 with many messages in my queue (ie 200). So why qmail-send is not asking rspawn to fork much more ... Regards Frip' - Original Message - From: "Dave Sill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 7:30 PM Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ... > "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >I'd like to know why I have messages in the queue (ie given by > >qmail-qstat) and I don't have as many qmail-remote processes as I've > >defined (verified by chkspawn). > > One obvious possibility is that the messages in the queue failed > temporarily on their previous delivery attempt and qmail-send is just > waiting for their retry time to roll around. > > -Dave
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
"Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > in fact I trying to know why I can see sometimes 100 qmail-remote processes > and sometimes only 10 with many messages in my queue (ie 200). > > So why qmail-send is not asking rspawn to fork much more ... After a delivery attempt fails, qmail waits a while before retrying it. If it failed once, it's likely it'll fail again if you retry immediately, so that would be wasted effort. paul
Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ...
Hello, ok but why waiting for a failed email attemp while many of them are waiting in the queue Regards Frip' - Original Message - From: "Paul Jarc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 7:27 PM Subject: Re: why so few qmail-remote processes ... > "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > in fact I trying to know why I can see sometimes 100 qmail-remote processes > > and sometimes only 10 with many messages in my queue (ie 200). > > > > So why qmail-send is not asking rspawn to fork much more ... > > After a delivery attempt fails, qmail waits a while before retrying > it. If it failed once, it's likely it'll fail again if you retry > immediately, so that would be wasted effort. > > > paul
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
Hello, I think I've found some explanations. In the thoughts file, I've found: qmail-send doesn't have any notions of precedence, priority, fairness, importance, etc. It handles the queue in first-seen-first-served order. One could put a lot of work into doing something different, but that work would be a waste: given the triggering mechanism and qmail's deferral strategy, it is exceedingly rare for the queue to contain more than one deliverable message at any given moment. Exception: Even with all the concurrency tricks, qmail-send can end up spending a few minutes on a mailing list with thousands of remote entries. A user might send a new message to a remote address in the meantime. The simplest way to handle this would be to put big messages on a separate channel. So I'll make a test with "queuelifetime=0" to see if my number of qmail-remote will increase dramatically. Regards Frip'
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > So I'll make a test with "queuelifetime=0" to see if my number of > qmail-remote will increase dramatically. You surely DON'T want to do this. This will cause every message that cannot be delivered with the first try to be bounced back to the sender as a failure. \Maex
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
Hello, I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my mails ... Regards Frip' - Original Message - From: "Markus Stumpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 8:08 PM Subject: Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 07:06:30PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > > So I'll make a test with "queuelifetime=0" to see if my number of > > qmail-remote will increase dramatically. > > You surely DON'T want to do this. > This will cause every message that cannot be delivered with the first > try to be bounced back to the sender as a failure. > > \Maex
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my > mails ... No, you obviously don't. Otherwise you'd noticed that the the first retry for a message in the queue starts after 6m40s so any value lower than 400 has the same effect than setting it to 0. \Maex -- SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
ah ok thanx a lot. Where do u find this value "6m40" ? Regards Frip - Original Message - From: "Markus Stumpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Markus Stumpf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001 1:54 PM Subject: Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes > On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:08:22PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > > I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my > > mails ... > > No, you obviously don't. Otherwise you'd noticed that the the first > retry for a message in the queue starts after 6m40s so any value lower > than 400 has the same effect than setting it to 0. > > \Maex > > -- > SpaceNet AG | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake > Research & Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't > D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet. >
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 02:31:58PM +0100, Jacques WERNERT wrote: > Where do u find this value "6m40" ? See qmail-send.c. chanskip[remote] ist initialized to 20 and qmail uses a quadratic retry schedule. This results in the tables that can found at e.g. http://www.lamer.de/maex/creative/software/qmail/times.html http://www.lifewithqmail.org/lwq.html#retry-schedule \Maex -- SpaceNet AG| Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Fon: +49 (89) 32356-0 Research & Development | D-80807 Muenchen| Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 Stress is when you wake up screaming and you realize you haven't fallen asleep yet.
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
"Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my > mails ... Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send qmail-send SIGHUP every once in a while. paul
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:30:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > "Jacques WERNERT" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I know that well so I put "5" but I can't take too much time to send my > > mails ... > > Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you > really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send qmail-send > SIGHUP every once in a while. > > > paul I'm no wizard or anything, but isn't ALRM the signal you want for that? Doesn't HUP just reread locals and rcpthosts? GW
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 06:40:35PM -0800, Greg White wrote: [snip] > > Reducing queuelifetime will not help you deliver mail faster. If you > > really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send qmail-send > > SIGHUP every once in a while. > I'm no wizard or anything, but isn't ALRM the signal you want for that? Yes. > Doesn't HUP just reread locals and rcpthosts? Yes. Greetz, Peter.
Re: Why so few qmail-remote processes
Greg White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, Jan 27, 2001 at 09:30:35PM -0500, Paul Jarc wrote: > > If you really want to retry failed deliveries more often, send > > qmail-send SIGHUP every once in a while. > > I'm no wizard or anything, but isn't ALRM the signal you want for that? > Doesn't HUP just reread locals and rcpthosts? Right, sorry. /me rereads man qmail-send. paul
