On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 11:38:31AM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
>
> It is good that you raised the issue -
THanks
Jeff
>
> Cheers,
>
> jjs
>
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please r
On Sat, 11 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:40:42PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>>
>>
>> >We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
>>
>> > -O QueueLA=20
>>
>> >and
>>
>> > -O RefuseLA=18
>>
"Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> NT and NetWare servers don't stop forwarding
> emails when the load average gets too high -- they just work out of the
> box, and hopefully, no so will Linux (our distribution does now since
> this problem in fixed).
Don't get me started on nt - saying it "just works" i
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>I guess all customers are idiots then, since about 100+ people who were
>using our release downloaded it, and had these problems with sendmail. This
>disconnect of yours is about what I would expect from someone in a University.
>Some of us don't have
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 01:40:42PM +, Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>
>
> >We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
>
> > -O QueueLA=20
>
> >and
>
> > -O RefuseLA=18
>
> >Need to be cranked up in sendmail.cf to something hi
On Sat, Nov 11, 2000 at 12:54:20PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > Yes, the documentation is broken. Linus did in fact implement this
>
> Well, also the implementation could be improved IMHO, think when we have one
> houndred o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard A Nelson) writes:
>I have several boxen running sendmail with fair to moderate loading -
>they even occasionally don't accept mail... and thats good, as it lets
>the system catch up with its current load. As soon as things stabalize,
>sendmail again accepts connections
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff V. Merkey) writes:
>We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
> -O QueueLA=20
>and
> -O RefuseLA=18
>Need to be cranked up in sendmail.cf to something high since the
>background VM on a very busy Linux box seems to exceed this which causes
>large email
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes, the documentation is broken. Linus did in fact implement this
Well, also the implementation could be improved IMHO, think when we have one
houndred of tasks sleeping in uninterruptible mode because the nfs server is
down for
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Claus Assmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > Why does Linux report a LA of 10 if there are only two processes
> > running?
> >
>
> Load Average = runnable processes (R) + processes in disk wa
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Ralf Baechle wrote:
> >
> > Jeff,
> >
> > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > > the way load average is calculated (s
I have this exact argument at work every so often. People coming in from
an NT environment have difficulty understanding what it is/means and
that it's not neccessarily bad when load gets above 1, etc, etc, etc.
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wro
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
> >
> > [... sendmail person ...]
> >
> > Ok, here's my bl
Jeff,
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
>
> [... sendmail person ...]
>
> Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it hav
Ralf Baechle wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There
> > isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what
> > it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 02:18:20PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There
> isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what
> it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your daemons start
> blocking because
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Claus Assmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Why does Linux report a LA of 10 if there are only two processes
> running?
>
Load Average = runnable processes (R) + processes in disk wait (D).
-hpa
--
<[EMAIL PROTEC
[ ... named redacted by request ... ] wrote:
>
> > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
> > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
> >
> > [... sendmail person ...]
> >
> >> Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it have a load
> >
Claus Assmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
> > circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
You said there were TCPIP timeout bugs. I can go retrieve the email.
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
>
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> > >settings.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
> circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
Please DON'T quote me wrong. This is getting very annoying.
Is that your way to spread rumours and false
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, David Lang wrote:
> how many CPUs in these high loadave boxes? unless you have a very
> impressive machine (8+SMP) the defaults should be plenty high.
>
> also I thought the QueueLA default was 8 and the RefuseLA was 12 or have
> they been bumped up since I last examined the
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >
> > Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come If sendmail cannot run
> > on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> > clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Neil W Rickert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> >settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and Open
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come If sendmail cannot run
> on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
> running qmail, and it doesn't
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Neil W Rickert wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> >settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and OpenLinux RPMs are
> >clearly set too low for modern Linux kernels. You may
>
> David Lang
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:52:01 -0700
> > From: Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail wi
Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come If sendmail cannot run
on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
running qmail, and it doesn't have these problems.
Jeff
Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> "
Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:52:01 -0700
> From: Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with attachments in
> /var/spool/mqueue
>
>
>
> Hey guys,
"Jeff V. Merkey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
>settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and OpenLinux RPMs are
>clearly set too low for modern Linux kernels. You may want them cranked
>up to 100 or something if you want
Hey guys,
We got to the bottom of the sendmail problem. The line:
-O QueueLA=20
and
-O RefuseLA=18
Need to be cranked up in sendmail.cf to something high since the
background VM on a very busy Linux box seems to exceed this which causes
large emails to get stuck in the /var/spool/mqueue
31 matches
Mail list logo
