Jason,
David is on the right track. Anything that would cause the CPU to be busy,
or other resources not being available, could cause delays in any other
service or process, causing it to take longer to respond than 'normal'. So
if the sender just does not wait long enough, it might consider the 1st MX
host down and then try the second. Might even depend on the sending server
and its 'timeout' setting. Do you see any T*.* files in the \imail\spool
dir, with dates/times similiar to the 2nd MX connect? Presence of one could
mean that IMail did accept a connection, but was ultimatley not terminated
correctly.
Disk drives, Auditing (and its setup/log files), or almost any number of
things could affect this. Look for other signs of intermittant high
utilization or limited resources. Try to figure out if there is any pattern
(time of day or other clues) that might help get closer to the source. NT
logs (as Len suggested) may (or may not!!) offer clues.
Logging can (generate large files) also be reduced in IMail (and other
places), to see if that has any effects. Of course free disk space and swap
files size (and its locations) can have performance effects. Mailbox sizes
can also have effects on access and system performance. If you have a user
with a 300M mailbox, and he deletes one message, IMail needs to make a
backup before deleting the message, so now you need 600M of disk space, just
for that mailbox. If RAM/swap file is smaller than 2X mailbox size, then you
could get 'thrashing' or similiar effects. Look for your largest maibox and
either limit it or make sure there are plenty of resources and disk speed to
accomodate.
Run Task Manager and PerfMonitor and get a long term baseline of the system,
looking for peaks to see if they concur with the MX events. Shut off any
unneeded services and programs. If this is a Domain Controller,
Syncronization can place a large load on the system and can happen at fairly
regular times. List Servers (in and outside, IMail) can place large loads on
the system, as can email loops (often accompanying Lists!).
That should keep you digging for a while and you will eventually, find all
the clues!
Daniel Donnelly
________________________________________________________
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Gregg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Rollover
> Do you see the use of the other mail exchanger as a problem or just
curious?
>
> Are you performing a backup at that time? I've seen some servers slow to
> crawl and refuse connections when writing/rewinding the tape drive. This
> would only be an issue if the tape drive was installed in the mail server
> though.
>
> Anyway, might explain why the other mail exchanger is being used if it's
not
> traffic related.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Weatherhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 9:17 AM
> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] Rollover
>
>
> >Len,
> >
> >I have only been able to see 1 smtpd32.exe process at one time on the
> >server. I have seen 2 smtp32.exe processes.
> >
> >The rollover happens several times a day. Yesterday the server processed
> >over 12,000 messages. If you count the copy all option it processed over
> >23,000 messages. The odd part is that some of the rollovers happen
during
> >off peak times such as between 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. Of course most of
> >those are mailing list servers sending horoscopes and other necessities
of
> >life. I inherited this server in August but through some research
> >discovered that this has been happening since at least January.
> >
> >Jason Weatherhead
> >SwitchPoint Networks
> >Network Systems Engineer
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Len Conrad
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2000 2:29 AM
> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] Rollover
> >
> >
> >
> >>I have two I-mail servers. One is for Corporate (.com) and one is for
> >>customers (.net). I have noticed that some of the E-mail headed for
.net
> >is
> >>being sent to the .com server and then forwarded to the .net server. I
> >have
> >>included my DNS record for .net. The .com server is setup as a backup
> mail
> >>server but I am curious as to why the mail is going to the .com server
in
> >>the first place? Is I-mail out of SMTP processes?
> >
> >SMTP"D" processes, maybe, look in NT task mgr.
> >
> >>@ IN MX 10 mail.xxxxx.net.
> >>@ IN MX 20 mail.xxxxx.com.
> >>
> >>When looking at the .net logfiles the same host is sending E-mail
directly
> >>to .net 5 minutes prior to the mail that goes to .com first.
> >
> >for many different senders or just one? repeatedly or
> >occassionally? If one, that one screwed up. If many and repeatedly,
> >better look at why .net is unreachable. I run MX 10 and MX 20 here,
> >and have almost no traffic spilling over to MX 20, maybe 1 or 2 out
> >of 3000/day.
> >
> >Len
> >
> >
> >http://BIND8NT.MEIway.com : ISC BIND 8.2.2 p5 & 8.2.3 T6B for NT4 & W2K
> >http://IMGate.MEIway.com : Build free, hi-perf, anti-spam mail gateways
> >
> >Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> >to be removed from this list.
> >
> >An Archive of this list is available at:
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
> >
> >Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> >to be removed from this list.
> >
> >An Archive of this list is available at:
> >http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
> >
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
> An Archive of this list is available at:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
An Archive of this list is available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/imail_forum%40list.ipswitch.com/
