On Tue, Jul 18, 2006 at 02:12:38PM +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote: > I've just had a try on another machine (different > hardware, 2.6 kernel rather than 2.4) and it hasn't > crashed in a few minutes' testing. Is it possible you've > been testing on 2.6? I've also tried it on a third > machine, identically configured to the second, but running > 2.4, and the bug does exhibit there.
Yes, I am testing on a 2.6 kernel. I have not been running a 2.4 kernel in ages, and Debian etch will still support 2.4 kernel, but only optionally. So, if this is a kernel 2.4 issue, I'd like to close this bug or reassign to the 2.4 kernel packages (if there are any left). Are you running a Debian kernel, or did you roll your own? > > Logging to a tmpfs didn't influence throughput here. Additionally, > > having exim query a local caching resolver, the throughput didn't > > change as well. > > I'm very surprised by that -- logging to disk is very > costly at high throughput. Yes, I was surprised as well. > It turns out (as expected, more-or-less) that you don't > need to do any deliveries to trigger it; simply connecting > and disconnecting is enough. The program below triggers > the bug on the first machine rather more quickly than > postal typically does. Does it trigger the bug on the 2.6 kernel as well? Greetings Marc -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marc Haber | "I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things." Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 621 72739835 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
