I dont know if this is related, maybe someone can explain
here is what I am seeing when i do a netstat at the command prompt
62.145.51.3:59511 TIME_WAIT
That just means that the IP 62.145.51.3 connected to your (from port 59511
on their side). The TIME_WAIT is there because the TCP/IP stack
I have been experiencing high CPU loads lately as well, I reverted back to
the release 1.65 but it is still doing it. I do not believe it is a declude
issue.
I dont know if this is related, maybe someone can explain
here is what I am seeing when i do a netstat at the command prompt
62.145.51.3:59
It looks good running the Beta Version Listed on the site and DECODE OFF.
- Original Message -
From: "R. Scott Perry" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 8:25 AM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server
Hi Scott,
> >I see the same (with a very small domain and very light usage). The mail
> >server is nowhere near the strongest, but is sometmies stressed with 1.70
> >(and was the same with 1.69b) but not 1.65.
>
> My recommendation for those that are experiencing this is to try adding a
> line "D
I see the same (with a very small domain and very light usage). The mail
server is nowhere near the strongest, but is sometmies stressed with 1.70
(and was the same with 1.69b) but not 1.65.
My recommendation for those that are experiencing this is to try adding a
line "DECODE OFF" to the \IMail
Met vriendelijke groet,
Bonno Bloksma
- Original Message -
From: "Dan Patnode" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 12:19 AM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
Thats interesting, I upgraded both
I see the same (with a very small domain and very light usage). The mail
server is nowhere near the strongest, but is sometmies stressed with 1.70
(and was the same with 1.69b) but not 1.65.
> -Original Message-
> From: Frederick
> I have noticed that using the v1.65 I never see Declude
mi Razvan
> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:45 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
>
> Hi;
>
> Our DNS is local. Same IP range and 2 racks above the mail server.
>
> We are also using IMail 8 with the cache
Behalf Of Jason Newland
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 5:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
Kami,
Is your DNS that IMAIL/Declude uses local to you? Or are you using an
upstream DNS? That many IPV4 tests may warrant this. We noticed a l
PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
>
>
>>
>> >Assuming we're all talking about the same thing, Declude continues to run
>> >as a process
AIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 3:58 PM
Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
I truly wish I could explain it..
May be I am dreaming.. But what I see is Declude does not get to 100% CPU
since we moved it to IMail to
t: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 4:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
>
> >Assuming we're all talking about the same thing, Declude continues to run
> >as a process waiting for replies from IP4r requests but does not consume
> >much CPU
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
Kami,
I'm running ten IP4r tests, referred to in my original email as an "external
DB query." There seems to be a descrepency between this as a cause and
Scott's answer:
> the
Assuming we're all talking about the same thing, Declude continues to run
as a process waiting for replies from IP4r requests but does not consume
much CPU time while doing so.
That is correct. It should use very, very little CPU time while waiting
for the results to come back.
Does pulling o
Scott,
The servers in question are not [yet] running Declude Virus so what happened should be
a purely Declude JunkMail question. With as lean as Declude is, looks like the only
way to test this is in the moment. During yesterdays "moment", it was tuff to sit by
turning off one test at a time
t;
>I am interested to see if this helps you if you try it.
>
>Regards,
>Kami
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Patnode
>Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:36 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [Declude.JunkMai
Just before bringing our 3rd server into the fold, things quieted
down. While I've already ordered 2 new dual processor 1U's, I want to par
down (if not eliminate) the variables invovled:
1) If an external DB query slowed things down, delaying each Declude
process, would Declude still show hi
ilto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Patnode
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Declude.JunkMail] Declude Processes & Server Load
We added about 350 users to our 2000+ user dual server configuration in the
last week and were doing pretty well until this a
We added about 350 users to our 2000+ user dual server configuration in the last week
and were doing pretty well until this afternoon. Suddenly the CPU load graph stopped
looking like its normal Donky Kong video game simulation (up and down) and more
resembled a 100% highway with a few dips. D
19 matches
Mail list logo
