Hi *,
I'm sure it's an FAQ but I haven't found any hints on this
until now.
>From my days with squid (http://squid.nlanr.net/), I
tought I'd now how to increase the filedescriptor limit on
Solaris.
For qmail I did the same (edit /etc/system and add 'set
rlim_fd_max = 4096').
But I still canno
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How can I increase this 'hidden limit'?
>
> > You can try what is described in /usr/include/sys/select.h, but i don't
> > know whether this will do something good: The C library might know too
> > much about the 1024 internally.
>
> Raising the limi
clemensF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ./chkspawn
> > Oops. Your system's FD_SET() has a hidden limit of 1024 descriptors.
>
> does qmail really take up that many fd's at a time?
Depends from what you're trying to do.
I just checked - sending 200 mails to one of our mail
servers (which is a li
Yiorgos Adamopoulos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is it possible to use qmail as the MTA for openmail? Openmail is an
> > exchange server clone that uses sendmail as it MTA.
>
> I think HP's OpenMail is largely based on older versions of sendmail, which
> makes it difficult.
I think, I used O
Greg Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm one of the admins of a largish Qmail installation (~60,000 mailboxes)
> and the hardware we're running it on it near the limit.
> (Sun Ultra 450, dual processor, A1000 storage array)
> The system is very IO bound, sometimes with a load average of 20-2
Mike Denka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Could you, or anyone else who would care to join this discussion, please be
> more specific re: "Suns filesystems and qmails file operations"?
I've done a lot tweaking squid proxies (Sun U2) and
therefore had a lot to do with filesystems. You can see
the
Hi *,
qmail-1.03 with bigtodo- and the big-queue-patch gives
this error-message, when I relay mails with smtpstone
through it.
root@:~# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 1221
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 77
Hints, where to look for a solution?
By
Töns
--
Linux. The dot in /.
Hi *,
when I try to torture my brand new qmail installation
(qmail-1.03 + bigtodo + bigconcurrency on Solaris 7, queue
on a separate 9 GB disk, mounted with 'noatime',
conf-split 521 or 321) a little bit, I get this error
message after about 1000 mails:
451 qq trouble creating files in queue (#4
Hi *,
after testing various configurations of qmail (different
conf-splits, with/without patches), I moved the queue-dir
to a partition, which resides on two disks - in fact RAID1+0 via
SDS.
And the errors went away. Furthermore, I learned, that
sending via qmail-inject doesn't have these proble
Hi *,
sorry for nagging you all with this one again, but I
really have to find out what is happening here.
An unmodified qmail-installation on this machine (and all
other Suns I could test)
SunOS namehere 5.7 Generic_106541-10 sun4u sparc SUNW,UltraSPARC-IIi-cEngine
breaks, when I try to relay
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A scan of the sources reveals that that error message is generated
> from the follow C code:
>
> if (chdir("queue") == -1) die(62);
>
> The reasons why that could fail are pretty limited in the qmail
> scenario.
>
> o The directory does not exist - installation e
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > make setup
> >
> > make setup
>
> > I installed an unpatched version of qmail - using an
>
> Ahh. So it's not make setup, but rather
>
> patch make setup
>
> Note quite as clean an answer I'm afraid.
Maybe I wasn't precise enough:
The error appears on the ment
John White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Reassured I installed the patched version with all the
> > nice features (conf-spawn=2045, conf-split=521) -> Success
> > - no error.
>
> On the Solaris 7 platforms, do you
> make setup check after you change conf-spawn and
> conf-split?
I copied the so
Andrew Richards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The SMTP service may issue a QUIT, and immediately try again,
> resulting in a potential loop."
>
> The actual qmail-smtpd error message re bare LFs is
>
> 451 See http://pobox.com/~djb/docs/smtplf.html
>
> which would trigger the above fault i
"Chris, the Young One" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ! Have you come across particular problems
> ! with tcpserver that lead you to the 'Need inetd' conclusion?
>
> I didn't say you ``need'' inetd. My conclusion was that with inetd,
> there is effectively _no_ concurrency lim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply - BUT what if I have accesss to a IBM H70 and D40
> configuration - 4 way 2gb ram - against a SUN E450 4 way 1.5G ram and a
> A5100 network storage array.
>
> Which is better - or are they both below a Intel machine ???
Yes they are. Especially
16 matches
Mail list logo
