On Fri, Oct 01, 1999, Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999 at 11:09:10AM -0700, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
Both work for me fine. I dunno what people's big gripes against inetd
are. It works damn well for almost every service that doesn't have high
loads. In 99
On Fri, Oct 01, 1999, David Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bruce Guenter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] write:
And what happens when somebody tries to actively attack your system?
With these limits, I expect that a remote user could make your system
run out of FDs in a few minutes, not to
On Thu, Aug 12, 1999, Fred Lindberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for your input. The limiting factor for my redhat linux 2.2.5
installation was a per user process limit of 256. The reason I
sometimes got 256 or 257 concurrency is that reporting is not exactly
synchronous with forking.
On Tue, Aug 10, 1999, Russell Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mirko Zeibig writes:
Once upon a time someone in this list told (or is it on djb's site?), Redhat
would do it's lists with qmail as well.
Yes, they used to, but no longer. They had some trouble with qmail,
didn't ask for
On Sat, Aug 07, 1999, Cris Daniluk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Concurrencyremote was set to the default 20.
Once we finished that test, I increaeed it to 255. Then, each server
started receiving ~30 messages per second. That mean qmail is sending 150
messages per second. Memory usage is pretty
On Fri, Aug 06, 1999, Jim Arnott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks for all your help and pointers. Looks like its the disk bandwith. When I
take out the fsync's in qmail-queue it drops down to 24 seconds (41.6/sec).
SUMMARY:
Could only inject a 1000 byte file into the queue at a rate of
On Thu, Aug 05, 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Daemeon Reiydelle wrote:
(2.6 or later). There may be limitations within e.g. qmail-[lr]spawn
about how many children it can manage. I am not working with that code
right know so I don't know. Anyone?
