From: Victor Duchovni (Victor.DuchovniMorganStanley.com)
Date: Mon Sep 03 2007 - 14:53:29 CDT

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2007 at 02:20:25PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote:

> Leandro Santi:
> > > High-low watermark solutions alone are too jittery, and moreover
> > > they are too complex for legacy Postfix releases.
> >
> > I'm reluctant to automate decisions based on the
> > system's load average, because the measure is not
> > regular across multiple kernel vendors (or different
> > Linux versions :-), nor it is fair across multiple
> > hardware configurations.
>
> I am talking about Postfix's own load measurement.

Indeed, Wietse is talking about process concurrency, not system load
and the response is not to defer work (QueueLA/RefuseLA make things work
when high loads are prolonged), but to drop connections that hog work
slots and get *more* work done, this makes sense, as it should drive the
observed load down given a surge of connection hogs, and not change
anything for load imposed by a surge of legitimate mail.

--
        Viktor.

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.

To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majordomopostfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>

If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]