[sniffer] Re: FW: [sniffer] Re: Sniffer 3.0 Froze Mail Server

2008-10-04 Thread Andy Schmidt
Hi Pete, Well, I eliminated WeightGate for the time being, just to do my due diligence. Also, since there is a fix sized buffer, I assume actually LOWERING the 3rd number (the allocation for each non-interactive process) would allow for MORE parallel processes to run (as long as the value is

[sniffer] Re: FW: [sniffer] Re: Sniffer 3.0 Froze Mail Server

2008-10-04 Thread Pete McNeil
Hello Andy, Saturday, October 4, 2008, 10:21:31 PM, you wrote: Hi Pete, Well, I eliminated WeightGate for the time being, just to do my due diligence. Also, since there is a fix sized buffer, I assume actually LOWERING the 3rdnumber (the allocation for each non-interactive process)