"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Followup to: <[email protected]>
> By author: Neil W Rickert <[email protected]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> > "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.
> Numerically high load averages aren't inherently a bad thing. There
> isn't anything bad about a system with a loadavg of 20 if it does what
> it should in the time you'd expect. However, if your daemons start
> blocking because they assume this number means badness, than that is
> the problem, not the loadavg in itself.
Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and
the way load average is calculated (senders name removed)
[... sendmail person ...]
Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it have a load
> average of 10 if there are two processes running? Let's check the
> man page:
> and the three load averages for the system. The load
> averages are the average number of process ready to
> run during the last 1, 5 and 15 minutes. This line
> is just like the output of uptime(1).
> So: Linux load average on these systems is broken.
So I guess we know where we stand with the sendmail folks. If the US
post office delivered mail at Christmas time using a size based priority
the way sendmail does, folks would all get their Christmas presents
about mid-February unless O NumberOfPostalWorkers=20 was set high
> <[email protected]> at work, <[email protected]> in private!
> "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/