On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Jethro R Binks wrote: > I've always thought that the default of 16 named lists to be rather low; > in testing a new configuration, I've found I'm now using more than that.
I'm always very bad at guessing how many of anything people will actually use in practice. > Could I suggest an increase to the default in the source, to 32? Or is > more than 16 named lists unusual? Is there a notable cost in increasing > it? I think it is unusual, because nobody else has raised this before. There is a notable cost because the caching arrangements use bitmaps, 2 bits per list. There are two caches for each address (local part + domain). Thus, increasing to 32 would add 8 bytes in the data block that is used for each and every address. A message with 1000 addresses would use up another 8K of memory. I'm always cautious about increasing the size of that data block. Probably overly so, but I come from the days when memory was expensive. > I know I can change it myself at compile time, but I use the FreeBSD port, > and there is currently no facility provided to make that change. I am > chatting to the port maintainer about it anyway, but I think a change to > the source default would be generally beneficial. I think it would be worth discussing this on one of the mailing lists to see whether there is any general feeling that 16 is too small. I would be happier to see it left as it is by default - clearly having a way to adjust it for FreeBSD would be useful. Philip -- Philip Hazel, University of Cambridge Computing Service. -- ## 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/
