On 2007-08-16 18:45:08 -0500, Peter A Eisch wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Peter Eisch wrote:
As I noted, forkserver was hit or miss without some safeguard to catch
when it tanked. And it did.
Early versions of forkserver died if a child died at
On 2007-08-15 20:27:24 -0400, Matt Sergeant wrote:
On 15-Aug-07, at 7:08 PM, Ed McLain wrote:
IS there any documentation anywhere on how and what needs to be
changed? I've looked on the wiki and don't see anything on there
about it. As an aside, I'll dig through the dnsbl plugin for async
On 2007-08-15 23:45:14 +0200, Stefan Priebe wrote:
But would be more luckier, if yome of the devolopers seem to care. Cause
qpsmtpd is a real great program i think... and it should be stable in a
new release and not that buggy as it is... i think this is really sad /
bad or whatever.
I
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Brady) writes:
AFAICT, nobody has ever said what constitutes 'faster', or what
performance testing has been done forkserver v Apache::Qpsmtpd.
When SMTP transactions are measured in seconds, faster really
doesn't matter
On 8/16/07 1:45 PM, Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Joe Schaefer wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Brady) writes:
AFAICT, nobody has ever said what constitutes 'faster', or what
performance testing has been done forkserver v Apache::Qpsmtpd.
When SMTP
I actually run forkserver, now prefork, under daemon (
http://libslack.org/daemon/) which handles all of the logging to syslog, or
file, and restarting the process if it fails. Works great on our boxes and
is much easier to run than tcpserver or svscan. I use:
/usr/bin/daemon
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Peter Eisch wrote:
... and I have to go through some hoops to get it on there that include
some various acknowledgements to the author.
That's BS. Anyone is free to download tcpserver without any
acknowledgements. If you don't like the ucspi-tcp license you can use
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Charlie Brady wrote:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Peter Eisch wrote:
... and I have to go through some hoops to get it on there that include
some various acknowledgements to the author.
That's BS. Anyone is free to download tcpserver without any
acknowledgements. If you don't
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 18:45 -0500, Peter A Eisch wrote:
That's BS. Anyone is free to download tcpserver without any
acknowledgements. If you don't like the ucspi-tcp license you can
use
ipsvd.
snip
Check out http://pkgsrc.org/ and try and install tcpserver without
jumping
through hoops
On 16-Aug-07, at 8:32 PM, Guy Hulbert wrote:
On Thu, 2007-08-16 at 18:45 -0500, Peter A Eisch wrote:
That's BS. Anyone is free to download tcpserver without any
acknowledgements. If you don't like the ucspi-tcp license you can
use
ipsvd.
snip
Check out http://pkgsrc.org/ and try and
Ed McLain wrote:
Hello all,
Got a quick question for all those out there running large setups using
qpsmtpd. We currently have a setup which is load balanced across an several
qpsmtpd servers running a custom linux distro that basically runs the entire
setup in ram for maximum performance.
I actually did a full testing of qpsmtpd-apache vs forkserver when I first
started building this cluster and the apache version just had way to much
overhead. Basically it couldn't handle the connections per second we were
throwing it. I asked the list for some help at that time, as I was
Ed McLain wrote:
I actually did a full testing of qpsmtpd-apache vs forkserver when I first
started building this cluster and the apache version just had way to much
overhead. Basically it couldn't handle the connections per second we were
throwing it. I asked the list for some help at that
Hello!
But be careful - the 0.40 preforkserver version has MANY MANY BUGS!!! We
tried to use it for about 500 servers with over 10 000 connections / 10
minutes - and it wasn't useable at all.
We've now changed many lines - in the code and it works well. I've
already posts some messages to
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, Fred Moyer wrote:
Maybe take Apache::Qpsmtpd for a spin. Anecdotal evidence suggests that it
is faster than forkserver [1], and it is a fairly simple install. Apache.org
is using it and processes quite a bit of mail.
[1]
I don't think the problem is that they don't care, I think the problem is
that the patches get implemented into SVN but the there is no feature lock
to the svn code for the bugs to get worked out on the base and with so many
options finding all of the bugs is just a pain waiting to happen. Having
On 15-Aug-07, at 5:35 PM, Stefan Priebe wrote:
But be careful - the 0.40 preforkserver version has MANY MANY
BUGS!!! We tried to use it for about 500 servers with over 10 000
connections / 10 minutes - and it wasn't useable at all.
We've now changed many lines - in the code and it works
On 15-Aug-07, at 5:39 PM, Ed McLain wrote:
I'm all for any changes you have. I found most, I think, of the
issues on
our beta system had to do with some of the plugins, not sure
though.. If you
have any patches though I'd be open to trying to them out. I gotta do
something. We currently
Ed McLain schrieb:
I'm all for any changes you have. I found most, I think, of the issues on
our beta system had to do with some of the plugins, not sure though.. If you
have any patches though I'd be open to trying to them out. I gotta do
something. We currently have 8 3Ghz ( single cpu/dual
IS there any documentation anywhere on how and what needs to be changed?
I've looked on the wiki and don't see anything on there about it. As an
aside, I'll dig through the dnsbl plugin for async and see what I can come
up with. Any information would be very helpful though.
On 8/15/07 6:05 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Brady) writes:
AFAICT, nobody has ever said what constitutes 'faster', or what
performance testing has been done forkserver v Apache::Qpsmtpd.
When SMTP transactions are measured in seconds, faster really
doesn't matter unless you're talking about how quickly you can
The problems I saw with Apache:Qpsmtpd were that the connections would get
battered over each other. Basically, spammer connects and gets blacklisted,
server drops the connection and takes a new one, new connections issues a
HELO and server responds back with a 50x error message. The only way to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed McLain) writes:
The problems I saw with Apache:Qpsmtpd were that the connections would
get battered over each other. Basically, spammer connects and gets
blacklisted, server drops the connection and takes a new one, new
connections issues a HELO and server responds back
On 15-Aug-07, at 7:08 PM, Ed McLain wrote:
IS there any documentation anywhere on how and what needs to be
changed?
I've looked on the wiki and don't see anything on there about it.
As an
aside, I'll dig through the dnsbl plugin for async and see what I
can come
up with. Any information
Hrmm.. I tried several different setups and configurations, rebuilding
apache to support the different forking methods. It was so long ago though
that I don't honestly remember which ones worked better or worse.
On 8/15/07 9:10 PM, Peter Eisch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see the
25 matches
Mail list logo
