, 2001 12:30 PM
To: Qmail Mailing List
Subject: Re: newbie question with concurrency remote
"Michael Geier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am running qmail on:
> RedHat 6.2
> 256 Mb Ram
>
>I set concurrency remote = 150...
>
>however, most of the
Michael Geier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I set concurrency remote = 150...
>
> however, most of the time, it seems like only a handful of remote processes
> are running, even though the queue backs up (right now, over 14000 msgs in
> queue and only 20 remote pro
"Michael Geier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I am running qmail on:
> RedHat 6.2
> 256 Mb Ram
>
>I set concurrency remote = 150...
>
>however, most of the time, it seems like only a handful of remote processes
>are running, even though the queue
I am running qmail on:
RedHat 6.2
256 Mb Ram
I set concurrency remote = 150...
however, most of the time, it seems like only a handful of remote processes
are running, even though the queue backs up (right now, over 14000 msgs in
queue and only 20 remote processes running
"Ricardo Albano" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Simple question: Any here have qmail-1.03 running and get more than 500
>"qmail-remote" proceses at same time ?
The limit on my list server is 500, and I routinely hit it. It's an
old 2-processor Alpha server running Tru64 UNIX.
-Dave
On Tue, Sep 26, 2000 at 05:05:47PM -0300, Ricardo Albano wrote:
> Simple question: Any here have qmail-1.03 running and get more than 500
> "qmail-remote" proceses at same time ?
Yes.
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
Simple question: Any here have qmail-1.03 running and get more than 500
"qmail-remote" proceses at same time ?
Bye
RDA.-
Hi Adam,
Adam McKenna wrote:
> You need at least 3 disks to do raid 5, and 4 to do 0+1. Since
> he mentioned that he only has two disks, and that they are "striped",
> it's pretty likely that he's talking about raid 0.
oops. sorry, you are right...it was 4:20 AM...
(kernel back trace: ff
From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
[snip]
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of t
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
[snip]
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
>
> Which RAID level?
> I remember somebody mentioning in this
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> "Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
>
> Which RAID level?
> I re
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
> I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
Which RAID level?
I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform
faster than 3 (or 5 obvi
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:24:00PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
[snip]
>
> What happens if I start a second copy of qmail using /var/qmail2, different
> uids, and bind to another IP on the same box? Will I be able to do 509
> concurrency out of each copy since they are running as different users?
be able to do 509
concurrency out of each copy since they are running as different users?
Jay
-Original Message-
From: James T. Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:41 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
Hi Jay,
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm:
[snip]
Thanks for the information!
I gotta get used to building RPMs...
(after all, I am using an RPM distro ;)
> As for the FD_SET problem, Dell sucks and ships a RAID card
> that requires a proprietary driver on their so
Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm:
rpm -ivh qmail-1.03-16.src.rpm
cd /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES
tar zxvf qmail-1.03.tar.gz
patch -p0 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:01 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
Hi Jay,
&quo
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> I grabbed the source rpm and just applied the patch to it and
> rebuilt it. Works great.
Congrats!
Please teach me how you did it!
> Except, FD_SET is limited to 1024 descriptors.
Don't you hate it when that happens? ;)
> How do I change this? I assume I c
ssage-
From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:11 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 07:06:26PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modificatio
please send me your followup.
Thanks,
David
on 9/18/00 10:25 PM, James T. Perry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> "Austad, Jay" wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modification
>> with an rpm. I suppose this will possibly screw things up if
>> I use so
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modification
> with an rpm. I suppose this will possibly screw things up if
> I use some binaries from a tarball and some from the possibly
> modified rpm version.
I just accomplished patching the big-concurre
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 07:06:26PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modification with an rpm.
> I suppose this will possibly screw things up if I use some binaries from a
> tarball and some from the possibly modified rpm version.
In that case, don't t
: Monday, September 18, 2000 6:58 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 06:54:41PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> If I use this patch to increase the concurrencyremote limit to 65535, can
I
> just compile qmail-remote and drop it in place?
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 06:54:41PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> If I use this patch to increase the concurrencyremote limit to 65535, can I
> just compile qmail-remote and drop it in place? Or do I have to replace
> everything?
If you mean the big-concurrency patch, no. It changes the interface
b
If I use this patch
to increase the concurrencyremote limit to 65535, can I just compile
qmail-remote and drop it in place? Or do I have to replace
everything?
Thanks.
-- Jay Austad Network Administrator CBS
Marketwatch 612.817.1271
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://cbs.marketwatch.com ht
I have concurrencyremote as default (20). My remote queue is full
(over 2000 messages) - only a few qmail-remotes running at any given time.
I usually see about 3-5 running at any given moment.
Any ideas why I don't see 20?
Thanks,
Reece
low 256 possible values (from 0-255).
>
>there's in auto_spawn.c:
>
>int auto_spawn = 255;
>
>AFAIK int isn't 8 bits long. BTW I had asked it a day or two before.
True.
However I think qmail-send get concurrency[remote|local] back from
qmail-[r|l]spawn as a char that is then c
On Wed, 3 Mar 1999, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 05:43:52PM -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote:
>
> AFAIK, it's something about the concurrency variable being 8 bits long, and
> 8 bits allow 256 possible values (from 0-255).
there's in auto_spawn.c:
int auto_spawn = 255;
AFAIK int i
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 05:43:52PM -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote:
AFAIK, it's something about the concurrency variable being 8 bits long, and
8 bits allow 256 possible values (from 0-255).
> Could someone refresh my memory why the maximum value for concurrencyremote is
> 255? I searched the archives
Could someone refresh my memory why the maximum value for concurrencyremote is
255? I searched the archives and found where people said this but I didn't
find out why the limit is 255. No matter what I do I can't squeeze out more
than 254 concurrent qmail-remote's. Running multiple qmail queues wi
29 matches
Mail list logo
