Brian Grossman wrote:
Since we're talking 10's of thousands of concurrency here in some cases,
the memory savings for [] vs {} may be worthwhile.
But by that argument, there is no point in using an array at all. The
original implementation stored a single value in $rcpt-[0], so there is
no
Author: jpeacock
Date: Mon Oct 10 08:49:50 2005
New Revision: 552
Modified:
branches/0.31/lib/Qpsmtpd/Address.pm
branches/0.31/t/qpsmtpd-address.t
Log:
* lib/Qpsmtpd/Address.pm
Convert objects to hash. Neuter parse() to wrapper around new().
Add overload stringify to $obj-format().
On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:32:21 -0400
John Peacock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since we're talking 10's of thousands of concurrency here in some
cases, the memory savings for [] vs {} may be worthwhile.
But by that argument, there is no point in using an array at all. The
original
On 10 Oct 2005, at 17:29, Brian Grossman wrote:
Forkserver's going to be miserable whether it's array or hash. I was
thinking in terms of PollServer and Matt's (I think it was Matt's)
claim of
concurrency 10,000 in his spamtrap.
Of course, there's so many hashes running around already,
On 10/10/05 4:58 PM, Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed. We run about 160M handling a peak of 3000 concurrent
connections. So just multiply by 4 to get 10k.
Do you run spamassassin on these systems? If so, how do you get around the
load that it imposes?
Thanks,
peter
On 10 Oct 2005, at 18:48, Peter Eisch wrote:
On 10/10/05 4:58 PM, Matt Sergeant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Indeed. We run about 160M handling a peak of 3000 concurrent
connections. So just multiply by 4 to get 10k.
Do you run spamassassin on these systems? If so, how do you get
around the
