Pete,
Yes the file is changing every few seconds or sooner. Sorry, I just
did a 'grab' of it and posted. The 307 is due to me stopping it after 30 min
or so and altering the few changes to the .conf file. I will continue to
monitor it over the weekend. However, so far so good. Thank
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 6:44:13 PM, Andrew wrote:
CA> I also had a bad first experience with the persistent sniffer, and
CA> switch to FireDaemon from SrvAny, and set the start priority for sniffer
CA> to "Above Normal"; I can't prove it, but I'm convinced that without that
CA> setting, Declud
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 9:36:05 PM, Keith wrote:
KJ> Pete/Matt/Andrew,
KJ> Thanks for all your wonderful input. Maybe I didn't
KJ> give it a fair shake or time enough as mentioned by Pete earlier.
KJ> I turned it on again about 30 min ago and have seen my system
KJ> stable, currently i
Pete/Matt/Andrew,
Thanks for all your wonderful input. Maybe I didn't give it a fair
shake or time enough as mentioned by Pete earlier. I turned it on again about
30 min ago and have seen my system stable, currently it is:
TicToc: 1112391330
Loop: 264
Poll: 445
Hey, I've got two cents that you're welcome to...
Both Pete and Matt mentioned that Keith's experience was outside the
bounds of the normal experience.
Keith, you could make sure that your setup is valid by setting up
Message Sniffer on your own workstation with srvany, and then manually
running
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 3:37:33 PM, Keith wrote:
KJ> pegged the CPU as you stated. We have batted around running BIND
KJ> for NT/2000 on the local machine, but my fear was overhead of
KJ> another major process running. I don't have any good stats on how
KJ> much CPU/Memory BIND on an Imail S
Keith,
Windows DNS service will handle over a million lookups a day without
blinking. There should be no reason to switch to a different DNS
server. It hardly even registers any CPU load on my boxes. The biggest
CPU hog is the virus scanners, and choosing your virus scanners
carefully will h
Pete,
Wow, thank you for the explanation. I did let the persistent
server run for 30 min after I restarted the services. However, I did
stop the services, then started Sniffer service, then restart Imail
services. I could have gotten a backlog of retries at that moment that
pegged the CP
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 11:44:07 AM, Keith wrote:
KJ> Pete,
KJ> Thanks for the reply.
KJ> Running on an IBM Xseries 225 Dual Xeon 2.4Ghz w/ 1GB RAM -
KJ> running IBM's ServerRAID 5i in IBM's RAID 10 config (4 73GB 10K drives)
KJ> - O/S is Windows 2000 Standard Server SP4
KJ>
Pete,
Thanks for the reply.
Running on an IBM Xseries 225 Dual Xeon 2.4Ghz w/ 1GB RAM -
running IBM's ServerRAID 5i in IBM's RAID 10 config (4 73GB 10K drives)
- O/S is Windows 2000 Standard Server SP4
Running Imail 8.15HF1 with Declude JM/Virus 1.82 - BIND DNS
Server is
On Friday, April 1, 2005, 8:04:27 AM, Keith wrote:
KJ> I have read forum results that this behavior is the reverse of
KJ> what should happen, I should get a reduction in CPU. I did this
KJ> around 11pm last night, usually during peak times this server
KJ> would stay at 65% load. Is there anythin
I have been installing the persistent sniffer module on each of our servers.
The 1st server I placed it on I saw very little decrease in CPU, however, it is
only taking in about 30K messages and sending out about 3K. However, last
night I was installing it on one of our busiest servers (140K i
12 matches
Mail list logo
