Author: W B Hacker Date: To: exim users Subject: Re: [exim] 4096 connection barrier
Ian Eiloart wrote: >
> --On 23 February 2009 12:13:07 +0000 Graeme Fowler <graeme@???>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 11:45 +0000, Ian Eiloart wrote:
>>> So, Exim's limit isn't reached on my machines, but nevertheless the
>>> limit needs revisiting for those who don't have my problem. Marc's
>>> right. The limit is too low for modern hardware.
>> ...to which the followup question is: what is a suitable limit for
>> modern hardware and OS combinations?
>>
>> To expand a little on your OSX limits, should Exim be checking on OSX
>> that it never spawns more than 2499 processes (queue runners, delivery
>> processes, inbound handlers and so on)? Should it factor OS variations
>> at all, or should they simply be documented?
>
> It's not necessary to place a limit in OSX. I can do that with launchd
> limits. What I set it to will depend on the other things that I'm using the
> server for.
>
>> What should be done to compare, say, Postfix / Sendmail et al?
>>
>> Most of these are (IMO) fairly rhetorical questions based on the fact
>> that the following one-line change moves the goalposts:
>>
>> --- daemon.c.orig 2009-02-23 12:08:25.000000000 +0000
>> +++ daemon.c 2009-02-23 12:08:40.000000000 +0000
>> @@ -1199,3 +1199,3 @@
>>
>> - if (smtp_accept_max > 4095) smtp_accept_max = 4096;
>> + if (smtp_accept_max > 16383) smtp_accept_max = 16384;
>>
>> But the first question stands: what value should be chosen? Or should
>> there simply *not be* an upper limit, so people can skewer themselves if
>> they choose an insane value for smtp_accept_max?
>
> Well, I already can launch enough SMTP processes to hose my server,
> unfortunately! I don't see why there should be a limit, but there should be
> a sensible value in the default config file, and a note to caution that
> Exim will launch up to smtp_accept_max processes.
>
>> Graeme
>
>
>
Obviously (posting from a PowerBook G4) I'm not an enemy of OS X.
But might I ask why, on GGE, one would attempt to use that
very-definitely-desktop-optimized OS for a *server* ???
... when several *BSD's and Linuxen run on the same hardware.. but NOT
as the best of desktops there. OTOH, better desktps than 10.3.X if on
Wintel/AMD/VIA.
