Re: Future of Qmail-LDAP
Scott Ryan <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.mail.qmail.ldap |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Have you checked Reverse DNS lookup? On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Ibrahim Harrani <[email protected]> wrote: > Scott, > > There is no problem with I/O. the number of mail in queue is quite small. > The main problem is CPU idle time. the CPU is idle %1-10 during the high > concurrent connection. > > Thanks. > > On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Scott Ryan <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> The load could be a result of I/O wait. Remember that qmail's queuing >> process is quite disk I/O intensive. >> >> Do you see any increase of the local queue? >> >> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 8:19 AM, Ibrahim Harrani >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > I wonder, am I only the one who is experiencing this problem? >> > Is there anyone has the same problem? >> > >> > >> > Thanks. >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Ibrahim Harrani >> > <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> In this qmail test, CPU idle was almost zero. CPU time was mostly used >> >> by >> >> system. >> >> >> >> In the same test, if you set max connection to 100/200 via tcpserver >> >> and >> >> don't change anyhing in xstress side(still opening 600 connection). >> >> The >> >> load is quite low. So I decided that the reason is forking many >> >> qmail-smtpd >> >> ? >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> CPU load has not realy much todo with how busy a system is. It is >> >>> possible >> >>> to have a cpu load of 1000 without even noticing it. It just means >> >>> that >> >>> there are more processes ready to run. >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> :wq Claudio >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Scott Ryan >> http://bonoboslr.wordpress.com/ > > -- Scott Ryan http://bonoboslr.wordpress.com/