|
Keith, First off, I can't believe that you can get a single Windows server to handle that load. Sounds like Microsoft didn't expect that was possible either... Your explanation makes sense regarding the number of network connections suddenly being limited somehow. I'm guessing that the same problem would exist for IMail 8 with a bunch of RBL's configured there. Maybe Ipswitch would at least let you know if they have seen similar problems? Microsoft also should be aware of the problem if in fact it isn't related to how Declude in particular works, which it doesn't sound like. One thing I am thinking is that you have a massive pipe going to your server, and you might have played with your TCP settings, and maybe this patch changed the values on you? That would bottleneck your bandwidth but not your processor. It's just a stab in the dark though. This could probably be tested fairly easily. The following article is very informative on that topic: Windows 2000 TCP Performance Tuning Tips http://rdweb.cns.vt.edu/public/notes/win2k-tcpip.htm According to that article, Windows 2000 out of the box is set best for Internet connectivity and 10 Mbps LANs, but your Internet bandwidth and the number of simultaneous connections can both influence what the best settings are. I'm not a TCP guru though, just roughly familiar with what the article points out (shame on me, I went to school for telecom). It could be a very unfortunate circumstance where your traffic is split into larger segments and wasteful small DNS queries, and there's no real good middle ground. If this is the case, maybe also a different DNS scheme could lessen the load on your servers outbound connections? Like having a caching server installed on the same box doing lookups off another local box? That would dramatically reduce the number of outbound connections I would think. But again, you obviously have more experience than I do with issues related to high traffic and I'm just stabbing in the dark at some ideas. BTW, I did read in one MS tech note that there was "unlimited" connections allowed under their server products. That might require some registry tweaking knowing them, and I wouldn't put it past them to change it on you with a patch. Matt Keith Anderson wrote: It's an extreme circumstance, so I won't blame Declude. After working on it for a few hours, the only thing that makes sense is that the patch is somehow limiting the number of network processes (more so than normal), and Declude pushes it over the edge. I wish there were a version of Imail and Declude for Linux....-----Original Message----- From: John Tolmachoff (Lists) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:11 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Timing out with latest Microsoft patch Well, I guess I could test this by installing on my server, but I do not have the load you do. |
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Cautionary note on BASE64 John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Cautionary note on B... John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- [Declude.JunkMail] Timing out with late... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Timing out w... John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Timing o... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail] Tim... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Matthew Bramble
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail]... Matthew Bramble
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail]... Matthew Bramble
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- Re: [Declude.JunkMail]... Matthew Bramble
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... John Tolmachoff \(Lists\)
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
- RE: [Declude.JunkMail]... Keith Anderson
