On Fri, 21 Jan 2005, Steven A. Reisman wrote:
> But they're only hints and aren't required. If a main Exim handled all
> input, would it be much overhead to have separate .db files for the
> auxillary Exims?
No, it wouldn't. I don't think that is actually the issue, however.
> Having separate instances of Exim serving each peer seems doable without
> coding changes. I don't believe the overhead of the separate spool
> directories would amount to much. There is the overhead of passing
> messages from one Exim to another over the local_interface, but if the
> peers are usually available, and this is just a backup scheme to keep
> from cluttering up the main Exim spool_directory, I think it would work.
I'm sure it would work. But if you have lots of peers and then aren't
always online things could be different.
--
Philip Hazel University of Cambridge Computing Service,
ph10@??? Cambridge, England. Phone: +44 1223 334714.
Get the Exim 4 book: http://www.uit.co.uk/exim-book
