On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 08:01:22AM +0100,
Peter Galbavy <Peter.Galbavy@???> is thought to have said:
> On Sat, Oct 09, 1999 at 07:25:00AM +0100, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
> > > On the server runs a named, by the way.
> >
> > That will help. Presumably as a caching only forwarding name server.
>
> Ocassionally you have to wary of this one. If memory or CPU resources
> are in short supply, you may end up thrashing between a running exim
> and a runnig named process on the same machine. In these
> circumstances, it is best to put a small named-only server on the same
> LAN as the mail server and let that answer queries.
>
> These comments may not apply in most cases with modern hardware and
> memory size, but given the recent threads regarding huge exim
> processes, then again it might.
>
> (BTW This is from first hand experience with another mailer - on those
> days - at Demon).
>
> Regards,
While I've never seen the thrashing behavior on any of my servers, I have
not seen any real performance differences between having a caching
forwarding named local or on a box on the same LAN. This is with Solaris
2.6 and above on UltraSPARC hardware. I get about the same number of
deliveries per hour when sending to a large list either way.
Tabor
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tabor J. Wells twells@???
Fsck It! Just another victim of the ambient morality
