From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 14 08:59:48 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2C4116A4CE for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:59:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from mygirlfriday.info (user204.net795.mo.sprint-hsd.net [65.41.216.204]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15B9043D1D for ; Sun, 14 Mar 2004 08:59:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gv-list-freebsdquestions@mygirlfriday.info) Received: (qmail 3608 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2004 16:59:45 -0000 Received: from localhost (127.0.0.1) by major.mygirlfriday.info with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP; 14 Mar 2004 16:59:45 -0000 Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 10:59:45 -0600 From: Gary To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <2090000.1079283585@[192.168.0.5]> In-Reply-To: <40548A39.9020607@discordians.net> References: <20040313015900.0837343D39@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <40548A39.9020607@discordians.net> X-Mailer: Mulberry/3.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: Pernicious problem with vfork / qmail / qmail-scanner (RESOLVED) X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: FreeBSD List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2004 16:59:48 -0000 Hi Justin, --On Sunday, March 14, 2004 11:37:13 AM -0500 "Justin Baugh, KSC" wrote: > So, after much testing & debugging: > > * The problem only happens with tcpserver > * The problem is not replicable in any way under 5.2.1R > * The problem happens with any service/user with tcpserver, not just > qmail-smtpd/qmaild > > I set up a testbed on my home box with a vanilla qmail install, and I > wasn't able to get it to choke up. As a workaround (until I can upgrade > the other box to 5.2.1R) I am running qmail through xinetd / > tcpwrappers (heresy, I know), and all is well. Happen to catch this, this morning... Good dig on this.. Tcpserver *defaults* to a maximum of 40 simultaneous connections, so this could very well be where your problem is.. Sorry, should have thought of this earlier. You can raise this limit with the -c n (n=number) option.. Please see -- Gary