Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come .... If sendmail cannot run
on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
running qmail, and it doesn't have these problems.
Jeff
Neil W Rickert wrote:
>
> "Jeff V. Merkey" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The problem of dropping connections on 2.4 was related to the O RefuseLA
> >settings. The defaults in the RedHat, Suse, and OpenLinux RPMs are
> >clearly set too low for modern Linux kernels. You may want them cranked
> >up to 100 or something if you want sendmail to always work.
>
> If a modern Linux kernel requires high load average defaults, I will
> stop using Linux.
>
> -NWR
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come .... If sendmail cannot run
> on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
> running qmail, and it doesn't have these problems.
If you have permanently high load average - sure, you need to bump
the limits. Always had been that way, nothing to do with the kernel.
OTOH, I really don't see WTF are FTP clients giving that kind of LA -
unless you've got really thick pipe on a box, that is. If it's a server -
WTF are they doing there at all? And if it isn't... Nice connectivity
you have there.
Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> >
> > Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come .... If sendmail cannot run
> > on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> > clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
> > running qmail, and it doesn't have these problems.
>
> If you have permanently high load average - sure, you need to bump
> the limits. Always had been that way, nothing to do with the kernel.
> OTOH, I really don't see WTF are FTP clients giving that kind of LA -
> unless you've got really thick pipe on a box, that is. If it's a server -
> WTF are they doing there at all? And if it isn't... Nice connectivity
> you have there.
I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
in Linux (which we have now disproved). Even despite the limits being
low, a "sendmail -v -q" command should always force delivery, and this
wasn't even working right. This box gets hammered day and night with
FTP activity. Had to upgrade since I learned when you post a free Linux
distriution, everyone beats a path to your door.
Jeff
On Fri, 10 Nov 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> Then perhaps qmail's time has finally come .... If sendmail cannot run
> on a machine with minimal background loading from a dozen or so FTP
> clients downloading files, it's clearly sick. BTW. I have another box
> running qmail, and it doesn't have these problems.
I have several boxen running sendmail with fair to moderate loading -
they even occasionally don't accept mail... and thats good, as it lets
the system catch up with its current load. As soon as things stabalize,
sendmail again accepts connections - you *do* have MX entries don't you?
I've *never* had the problem you've got with *any* of the boxes - maybe
you should rethink your setup. I'll wager that the qmail box isn't as
heavily loaded as the one running sendmail; why not split your services?
--
Rick Nelson
There are two types of Linux developers - those who can spell, and
those who can't. There is a constant pitched battle between the two.
(From one of the post-1.1.54 kernel update messages posted to c.o.l.a)
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
> circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
Please DON'T quote me wrong. This is getting very annoying.
Is that your way to spread rumours and false accusations?
Unless you come up with something constructive, I'm off this
"discussion" now.
Claus Assmann wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 10, 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
>
> > I have dual T1 lines going into the box, and I just added a 4-way ADSL
> > circuit as well (4 x 550K). Claus claimed there were TCPIP timeout bugs
You said there were TCPIP timeout bugs. I can go retrieve the email.
If there's this type of problem, the linux folks need to know so it can
get fixed.
Jeff
>
> Please DON'T quote me wrong. This is getting very annoying.
> Is that your way to spread rumours and false accusations?
>
> Unless you come up with something constructive, I'm off this
> "discussion" now.
[email protected] (Richard A Nelson) writes:
>I have several boxen running sendmail with fair to moderate loading -
>they even occasionally don't accept mail... and thats good, as it lets
>the system catch up with its current load. As soon as things stabalize,
>sendmail again accepts connections - you *do* have MX entries don't you?
% dig timpanogas.com mx
[...]
timpanogas.com. 1D IN MX 10 mail.timpanogas.com.
No. He _is_ clueless with a big mouth as the regular readers of LKM
already know.
"and it's all either the fault of other people or the kernel".
Regards
Henning
--
Dipl.-Inf. (Univ.) Henning P. Schmiedehausen -- Geschaeftsfuehrer
INTERMETA - Gesellschaft fuer Mehrwertdienste mbH [email protected]
Am Schwabachgrund 22 Fon.: 09131 / 50654-0 [email protected]
D-91054 Buckenhof Fax.: 09131 / 50654-20