now reduced 6000 to 600 now, during these hours i dont see any bandwidth saturation, regarding paging, oops i didnt observe that. Let me try to figure it out when it occurs next time.
> To: [email protected] > From: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 09:15:55 -0700 > Subject: [qmailtoaster] Re: Fine tuning qmail+spamdyke - continuation > with my previous mail > > nicole thomson wrote: > > Thanks eric > > > > Now i increased the timeouts from 600 to 6000, let me wait and see does > > it needs tobe increased more, also i subscribed in spamdyke users > > mailing list. Will update the happenings frequently > > > > --Nic > > > > > > 6000 (1:20:00) seems excessive. I think that 600 (00:10:00) is > reasonable. You might end up with a lot of idle connections with a > setting this high, which would tend to consume your ram. We are talking > the idle_timeout_secs parameter in spamdyke, right? > > You need to find the root cause. Are you experiencing bandwidth > saturation? Is paging high? Is there some other resource that's limited? > Timeouts are typically symptomatic of some other problem. Are you seeing > timeouts from a variety of legitimate sites? > > -- _________________________________________________________________ Windows 7: Find the right PC for you. Learn more. http://windows.microsoft.com/shop
