Chris Berry wrote: >>From: "Jason R. Mastaler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Jesse Guardiani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > I'm pretty concerned about it, actually. TMDA would be a lot quicker >> > and more reliable, IMO, if it didn't try to read the body of a 10M >> > message into memory. >> >>How would it be more reliable? How would it be quicker? TMDA needs >>the contents of the message body at some point anyway. >> >>True, it would use less memory if it spooled the message body from a >>temp file or something instead. However, since this is a more complex >>procedure, I think it would be more error prone, and less reliable. >> >>Memory is cheap, which is probably why this hasn't been a practical >>concern in the past. >> >>As I've also said in the past though, if someone wants to propose a well >>designed solution, and then write some well-engineered code that >>implements that solution, I'll certainly consider it. > > Sounds like over-optimizing to me
Never heard of it. >, it's works fine now. What problem are > you trying to solve? Specifically, my qmail-smtpd processes run under a memory limiting program called 'softlimit'. If the email module loads incoming emails into RAM, then I have to set up softlimit to limit the size of my qmail-smtpd pipeline's RAM usage to the normal program usage + the size of the largest email I want to receive. Typically, my qmail-smtpd process uses 2.2M of RAM, and my python filtering script, with all modules loaded, uses 4.4M of RAM. So, the smallest I can set my softlimit is 6.6M, which would normally allow PLENTY (90) SMTP processes under my designated 600M server RAM limit. However, now I have to add my max message size to the mix, so if I want a max of 30 SMTP processes running simultaneously, I must set my softlimit to 20M, which gives me 12.4M per message. If the email module didn't gobble the entire email up into RAM, then I wouldn't have to set my max message size with softlimit, and I could safely run with a higher maximum qmail-smtpd process count. Also, on the TMDA front, if TMDA didn't read the entire email into RAM, then it would be slightly faster and less likely to eat up my RAM with concurrent deliveries. It all makes perfect sense to me. I'm not sure why everyone is so opposed to the idea. -- Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator WingNET Internet Services, P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605 423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f) http://www.wingnet.net _________________________________________________ tmda-workers mailing list ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://tmda.net/lists/listinfo/tmda-workers
