From owner-freebsd-current Mon Apr 3 11:39: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from morpheus.skynet.be (morpheus.skynet.be [195.238.2.39]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C95A37B680 for ; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 11:39:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from blk@skynet.be) Received: from [195.238.1.121] (brad.techos.skynet.be [195.238.1.121]) by morpheus.skynet.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F7ADBF2; Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:38:50 +0200 (MET DST) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: blk@pop.skynet.be Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <38E8DEEF.7224C9A@geocities.com> References: <200004030410.XAA75906@celery.dragondata.com> <38E8DEEF.7224C9A@geocities.com> Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2000 20:31:03 +0200 To: Barry Pederson , current@FreeBSD.ORG From: Brad Knowles Subject: Re: Load average calculation? Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 1:11 PM -0500 2000/4/3, Barry Pederson wrote: > Won't this also goof up programs like Exim (an SMTP MTA), that have some > settings available for how to handle messages under various loads > (process now, queue for later, etc)? If there has been an actual change in how the load average is calculated, then any program that changes it's behaviour based on the load average may have problems. This would certainly include SMTP MTAs such as sendmail, Exim, etc.... However, more recent comments lead me to question whether there actually has been a change in the way load is calculated. -- These are my opinions -- not to be taken as official Skynet policy ====================================================================== Brad Knowles, || Belgacom Skynet SA/NV Systems Architect, Mail/News/FTP/Proxy Admin || Rue Colonel Bourg, 124 Phone/Fax: +32-2-706.13.11/12.49 || B-1140 Brussels http://www.skynet.be || Belgium To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message