Hi Adam,
Adam McKenna wrote:
> You need at least 3 disks to do raid 5, and 4 to do 0+1. Since
> he mentioned that he only has two disks, and that they are "striped",
> it's pretty likely that he's talking about raid 0.
oops. sorry, you are right...it was 4:20 AM...
(kernel back trace: ff
From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 2:30 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
[snip]
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of t
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
[snip]
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
>
> Which RAID level?
> I remember somebody mentioning in this
On Wed, Sep 20, 2000 at 04:19:30AM +0900, James T. Perry wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> "Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> > I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> > yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> > 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
>
> Which RAID level?
> I re
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
> I had both of my QMQP servers bouncing off of the 120 limit
> yesterday, and they were pretty much idle (Dell 2450's with
> 2 striped 9GB 10k rpm drives).
Which RAID level?
I remember somebody mentioning in this list that 0+1 will perform
faster than 3 (or 5 obvi
On Tue, Sep 19, 2000 at 12:24:00PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
[snip]
>
> What happens if I start a second copy of qmail using /var/qmail2, different
> uids, and bind to another IP on the same box? Will I be able to do 509
> concurrency out of each copy since they are running as different users?
be able to do 509
concurrency out of each copy since they are running as different users?
Jay
-Original Message-
From: James T. Perry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 11:41 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
Hi Jay,
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm:
[snip]
Thanks for the information!
I gotta get used to building RPMs...
(after all, I am using an RPM distro ;)
> As for the FD_SET problem, Dell sucks and ships a RAID card
> that requires a proprietary driver on their so
Here's what I did to rebuild the rpm:
rpm -ivh qmail-1.03-16.src.rpm
cd /usr/src/redhat/SOURCES
tar zxvf qmail-1.03.tar.gz
patch -p0 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 19, 2000 4:01 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
Hi Jay,
&quo
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> I grabbed the source rpm and just applied the patch to it and
> rebuilt it. Works great.
Congrats!
Please teach me how you did it!
> Except, FD_SET is limited to 1024 descriptors.
Don't you hate it when that happens? ;)
> How do I change this? I assume I c
ssage-
From: Peter van Dijk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2000 7:11 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 07:06:26PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modificatio
please send me your followup.
Thanks,
David
on 9/18/00 10:25 PM, James T. Perry at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Hi Jay,
>
> "Austad, Jay" wrote:
>>
>> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modification
>> with an rpm. I suppose this will possibly screw things up if
>> I use so
Hi Jay,
"Austad, Jay" wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modification
> with an rpm. I suppose this will possibly screw things up if
> I use some binaries from a tarball and some from the possibly
> modified rpm version.
I just accomplished patching the big-concurre
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 07:06:26PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> Unfortunately, I installed the boxes that need the modification with an rpm.
> I suppose this will possibly screw things up if I use some binaries from a
> tarball and some from the possibly modified rpm version.
In that case, don't t
: Monday, September 18, 2000 6:58 PM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: Re: concurrency remote patch
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 06:54:41PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> If I use this patch to increase the concurrencyremote limit to 65535, can
I
> just compile qmail-remote and drop it in place?
On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 06:54:41PM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> If I use this patch to increase the concurrencyremote limit to 65535, can I
> just compile qmail-remote and drop it in place? Or do I have to replace
> everything?
If you mean the big-concurrency patch, no. It changes the interface
b
16 matches
Mail list logo
