> It causes them to crash disastrously under any serious load.
So when Danny posts his load test code, we ought to be able to verify that
these changes do, in fact, correct the problem. :-)
> This is not a little game to me. I'm not interested in getting a beer
> from anyone - I want the server to work the way it should.
Hopefully, everyone takes James seriously. Personally, I run James as our
primary mail server, with about 200 users receiving e-mail through it, a
bunch of mailing lists, and a bit more than a dozen domains. I need for
James to work. As a professional matter, I always look at code change as
introducing the risk of defects, and tests are important. But when we can
reproduce a failure, fixing it is a good thing. If people are to start
running James more widely, I don't think that we don't want it to fail in
such a resource constrained manner if we have the fix.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
