W B Hacker wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: > >> --On 23 February 2009 12:13:07 +0000 Graeme Fowler <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:45 +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote: >>> >>>> So, Exim's limit isn't reached on my machines, but nevertheless the >>>> limit needs revisiting for those who don't have my problem. Marc's >>>> right. The limit is too low for modern hardware. >>>> >>> ...to which the followup question is: what is a suitable limit for >>> modern hardware and OS combinations? >>> >>> To expand a little on your OSX limits, should Exim be checking on OSX >>> that it never spawns more than 2499 processes (queue runners, delivery >>> processes, inbound handlers and so on)? Should it factor OS variations >>> at all, or should they simply be documented? >>> >> It's not necessary to place a limit in OSX. I can do that with launchd >> limits. What I set it to will depend on the other things that I'm using the >> server for. >> >> >>> What should be done to compare, say, Postfix / Sendmail et al? >>> >>> Most of these are (IMO) fairly rhetorical questions based on the fact >>> that the following one-line change moves the goalposts: >>> >>> --- daemon.c.orig 2009-02-23 12:08:25.000000000 +0000 >>> +++ daemon.c 2009-02-23 12:08:40.000000000 +0000 >>> @@ -1199,3 +1199,3 @@ >>> >>> - if (smtp_accept_max > 4095) smtp_accept_max = 4096; >>> + if (smtp_accept_max > 16383) smtp_accept_max = 16384; >>> >>> But the first question stands: what value should be chosen? Or should >>> there simply *not be* an upper limit, so people can skewer themselves if >>> they choose an insane value for smtp_accept_max? >>> >> Well, I already can launch enough SMTP processes to hose my server, >> unfortunately! I don't see why there should be a limit, but there should be >> a sensible value in the default config file, and a note to caution that >> Exim will launch up to smtp_accept_max processes. >> >> >>> Graeme >>> >> >> > > Obviously (posting from a PowerBook G4) I'm not an enemy of OS X. > > But might I ask why, on GGE, one would attempt to use that > very-definitely-desktop-optimized OS for a *server* ??? > > ... when several *BSD's and Linuxen run on the same hardware.. but NOT > as the best of desktops there. OTOH, better desktps than 10.3.X if on > Wintel/AMD/VIA. > > 'horses for courses' ? > > Regards, > > Bill > >
Agreed. In fact why buy super expensive Apple server hardware when you can build a generic PC clone and run Linux on it? A quad core AMD with 8 gigs of ram and a 500G hard drive will cost you under $400. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
