From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Oct 24 13:00:15 1995 Return-Path: owner-chat Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id NAA29070 for chat-outgoing; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 13:00:15 -0700 Received: from palmer.demon.co.uk (palmer.demon.co.uk [158.152.50.150]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA29018 for ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 12:59:22 -0700 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by palmer.demon.co.uk (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id UAA04607 ; Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:53:54 +0100 To: "Jonathan M. Bresler" cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: moving some mail. In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 24 Oct 1995 14:58:55 EDT." Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 20:53:49 +0100 Message-ID: <4604.814564429@palmer.demon.co.uk> From: Gary Palmer Sender: owner-chat@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk "Jonathan M. Bresler" stands accused of writing in message ID : >On Tue, 24 Oct 1995, Gary Palmer wrote: > yeah....headers and all that. some mail contains little added >information and a lot of quoted text that does not help at all. (hey! >who you looking at! ;) :-) > the faster the better. puts a new prespective on the number of >sendmail processes running. each one has to wait for the other end to do >its thing. so maybe 30-50 sendmail processes sitting on a wait channel >aint that bad after all, they dont complete for kernel resources and >context switches when on a wait channel (right?). given 30 sendmails >and 1.6 messages/sec either each one waits about 20 seconds average or >we are in deep trouble regarding context switching...not! I think we either need more memory in freefall, or a dedicated spool disk or something to try and speed up delivery. I'm sure that a pentium should be able to shift more mail than that. Mebbe the T1 is starting to slow things down. > bingo! that's 1 for 1, care to guess the other? Wild guess: nimh.gttw.com? > oh, bother! I >MAY< have a patch file to fix this somewhere. Have to go digging. Gary