From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri May 17 10:43:42 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from hpdi.ath.cx (pc1-nfds1-5-cust34.not.cable.ntl.com [80.4.34.34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEE2037B408 for ; Fri, 17 May 2002 10:43:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from msger@hpdi.ath.cx) by hpdi.ath.cx (8.11.3/8.11.3) id g4GM93P00428; Thu, 16 May 2002 23:09:03 +0100 (BST) (envelope-from root) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:09:02 +0100 From: Hiten Pandya To: Peter Wemm , Doug White Cc: Omar Thameen , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: tuning a CPU bound server Message-ID: <20020516230902.A398@hpdi.ath.cx> Reply-To: Hiten Pandya Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i Organisation: Hiten Pandya, LE5 3NF, Leicester, United Kingdom X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.3-RELEASE i386 (hpdi.ath.cx) Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG --- Peter Wemm wrote: > The only real problem that I know of with postfix is that it still > suffers from select(2) collisions (FreeBSD kernel problem) when it tries > to shut down a bunch of idle smtp senders. That can cause transient load > average spikes - this can be a bit alarming but doesn't actually affect > things very much. Just wondering, are these the kind of problems which can be solved by using the kqueue(2) mechanism, or am I talking nuts again? Regards. -- Hiten Pandya | xMach FreeBSD Solaris JFS4BSD UNIX POSIX "Who needs a life when you have FreeBSD and xMach :-)" WWW: http://storm.uk.FreeBSD.org/~hiten Finger hiten@storm.uk.FreeBSD.org for PGP key hiten@xMach.org, hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, hitmaster2k@yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message