>At 03:44 PM 8/3/99 -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
>>David Villeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>Even with more than 1024 file descriptors, you can't have
concurrencyremote
>>>go over 256 without patching qmail.
>>
>>You're right, I was confusing two issues: the concurrency remote limit
>>and insufficient file descriptors. Under older Linux kernels, the
>>default max file descriptors is too low to support concurrencyremote
>>of 255.
>
>No, no, you had a point: even Solaris 2.x (a recent OS), has a file
>descriptor limit set by default at 64. The number of file descriptors
>needed by qmail is 2*concurrencyremote+5 (this is due to the fact that all
>fds to qmail-remote's are kept open,...).
>
>So for a reasonable concurrencyremote (>30), you will need to increase the
>fd limit. But even if you do, you *can't* bring concurrencyremote over 256.
>
>David.
>______________________________________
>David Villeger
>(212) 972 2030 x34
>
>http://www.CheetahMail.com
>The Internet Email Publishing Solution
>
I was under the impression that the "big" qmail patches by Russell would
increase this concurency level above 256. File descriptors are a minimal
problem, increasing file descriptors in linux is as simple as can be and I
would imagine that FreeBSD is just as easy. It appears that our major NT
bottleneck is that it will never be sending more than a few hundred
concurrent email messages. This sucks... with a 45mbit line, it would be
more productive to be sending 4-5 times that. Will be run into similar
limitations with qmail, or will we be able to patch it to accept more than
256? As far as linux goes, we'll have no problems patching that so that more
processes/file descriptors are available.
Cris
