On Fri, 18 Aug 2006, Philip Hazel wrote: > > In the case of queue_only_load, I think it might be hard to pick a > number that would be suitable for the huge variety of hardware > configurations that Exim runs on. Maybe. I'm no expert in exactly what > the load value means.
Traditionally it's the average number of CPU-limited and disk-limited processes. The right load limit setting depends a lot on what your workload is. If your main bottleneck is disk, then you don't want your load to get up near one. (You need some headroom to recover from bursts.) If your main bottleneck is CPU then loads up to the number of cores are OK. So in the situation where a lot of messages are being pumped down the same connection, a lot of delivery processes will be fired off concurrently, which implies a spike in disk load. Queue runner processes, on the other hand, run serially, so are smoother on the load. For stuff like SpamAssassin, you can manage the imposed load by tuning the number of spamd children to some small multiple of the number of CPUs (allowing for network test latencies), with a suitable connection backlog limit to allow for burstiness. Tony. -- <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dotat.at/ ${sg{\N${sg{\ N\}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}}\ \N}{([^N]*)(.)(.)(.*)}{\$1\$3\$2\$1\$3\n\$2\$3\$4\$3\n\$3\$2\$4}} -- ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://www.exim.org/eximwiki/
