On Sat, 2009-09-19 at 02:23 -0400, Aaron Wolfe wrote:
> 2009/9/18 Karsten Bräckelmann:
> > This machine NEEDS more RAM. In fact, I'd guess half of the spam
> > slipping through is due to timeouts. Thrashing into hell.
>
> throwing ram at a server is not a solution in this case. 512MB is
> sufficient to handle this mail load, as indicated by his post showing
> little swap utilization on the system and confirmed by my real world
You're right, Aaron, the output of 'free' suggests this is not actually
a problem.
Alas, even though I asked repeatedly, this data point was given after
that post of mine, and I was limited to very little info and some
observations.
> experience. here we handle over 1 million messages per day per node,
> each node has 1GB ram. ram required is easily calculated by base
> services + SA instance usage X number of instances you'd like to use.
> having less instances generally just means slight (very slight in most
> cases) delays. having more instances than your ram can contain means
> big delays. properly configured server will not start swapping and
> falling over when a flood of mail comes in, mail simply spends more
> time in queue. the difference between 1 second and 1 minute in queue
> is not usually significant to users.
>
> the problem here is bad administration. hopefully with the advice
> given on list and better yet some time spent studying docs, this can
> be corrected.
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu...@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
