On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Gudbjorn Hreinsson wrote:
> I've actually wondered about this, the FAQ or README does not state this
<snip from INSTALL>
While standalone mode may offer better performance than using inetd,
be aware that you may lose capabilities such as load throttling,
address filtering, etc.
</snip>
robert
> point. I wonder why forking from inetd vs. qpopper forking itself would
> offer a major performance gain? Server mode on the other hand may offer
> more performance gain depending on the users activities...
>
>
> Rgds,
> -GSH
>
> Edward Siewick wrote:
> >
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Admin Mailing Lists wrote:
> > > Can someone list the advantages and disadvantages of running qpopper in
> > > standalone mode vs. xinetd mode
> >
> > 1. Performance
> > 2. Performance
> > 3. Performance
> >
> > Generally, if you've got heavy demand for POP3, configure for standalone
> > as this avoids the start-up costs for the process. If you've got
> > infrequent demand, just run from [x]inetd.
> >
> > Edward
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] DigiPro Digital Productions, LLC
> > Voice: 703-522-8465 3100 North Quincy Street
> > Fax: 703-522-8417 Arlington, Virginia 22207
>
---
di. robert rotman inode.graz
phone -> ++43-(0)316 813141 ++43-(0)316 818600/15 <- fax
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.graz.inode.at/
--
while (!sleep) { $sheep++ }
