On 30 Oct 2000 michael@??? wrote:
> did anybody ever try multiple exim processes that accept() connections
> from the same socket? It would reduce the latency on heavily loaded
> systems, but I have no clue if that would make any difference for mail
> systems.
I'm not sure exactly what that would mean, but I really don't think that
the listening daemon is a bottle neck in any situation.
> I suggest the following feature (for discussion, so far):
>
> There should be a delay time, after which a further queue runner will
> be started, if the last started queue runner has not yet exited during
> that time interval.
This should be an easy script to write.
> Somehow I think that mails that were just queued and not deferred
> should be given precedence,
But that already happens. If a message is not deferred exim tries to
deliver it immediately. It will only be sitting in the queue waiting for
a queue run (as oppossed to being in the queue, but being handled) if
something forces its deferrel.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg
I have recently moved, see
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/contact.html
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
