On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Bryan Scott wrote:
Forkserver spawns and forks a bunch of qpsmtpd processes ahead of time
instead of the shell having to spawn a new perl process each time a
connection comes in.
Not quite - that's prefork :-)
Forkserver forks on every connection, but has the perl code p
diff --git a/logcompact b/logcompact
index 217d25a..ccd517d 100644
--- a/logcompact
+++ b/logcompact
@@ -167,6 +167,14 @@ sub hook_queue {
return DECLINED;
}
+sub hook_post_connection {
+my ($self) = @_;
+return DECLINED if $self->qp->connection->notes("logcompact");
+
+$self->_
It logs lines like:
Wed Mar 12 23:14:12 2008 c6[19799]: `L=194.145.201.216; R=193.200.132.135;
F=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; T=<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; P=queued;
S=""; I=; H="feather.perl6.nl (EHLO feather)"
Wed Mar 12 23:14:13 2008 c6[19819]: `L=193.200.132.185;
R=190.172.177.; F="";
Michael Salbinger wrote:
hi,
thanks a lot, we installed forkserver and now, everything is nice,
i am only wondering, why the step between normal operation without forkserver
and then extreme high load, is so big... maybe the spam got more.
now the box is having a load from 0.50 to 2.
thats very
hi,
thanks a lot, we installed forkserver and now, everything is nice,
i am only wondering, why the step between normal operation without forkserver
and then extreme high load, is so big... maybe the spam got more.
now the box is having a load from 0.50 to 2.
thats very nice!
regards
m.
--
__
On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
Perhaps qpsmtpd-async should be added too?
Matt, what do you think?
Definitely.
On Mar 12, 2008, at 8:15, Robin Bowes wrote:
This trivial patch adds qpsmtpd-prefork.
Done, r851.
Perhaps qpsmtpd-async should be added too?
Matt, what do you think?
- ask
--
http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/
For some reason, only qpsmtpd and qpsmtpd-forkserver are defined as
EXE_FILES in Makefile.PL.
This trivial patch adds qpsmtpd-prefork.
Perhaps qpsmtpd-async should be added too?
--- Makefile.PL 2008-03-10 16:42:30.0 +
+++ Makefile.PL.new 2008-03-12 15:07:56.0 +
@@ -
On Sat, 8 Mar 2008, Steve Kemp wrote:
Having said that though executing "uptime" on each incoming connection
might increase resource usage at a time when the system is already
loaded - but I'm certain that doing that will be a lot less resource
intensive than running clamav, spambayes, and all
