On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 05:52:37PM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 26, 2001 at 06:16:12PM +0200, Andrea Campi wrote:
> > All my problems are now gone. This sort of makes sense to me, as the culprit,
> > qmail, is quite socket intensive.
> >
> > Anybody has any idea how to properly fix?
>
> This patch changed quite a few things, so it's not obvious exactly
> what is causing the problem.
I know. I'd like to look deeper into the issue, but from a quick glance at the
code, I don't think I could figure out a way to separate those "things" and try
each one. Do you happen to have separate patches for them, that I could try?
> Do you know if qmail does any discriptor passing? The code makes
> discriptor passing a bit more mbuf intensive, so it's possible that
> you're running your machine out of mbufs. I know qmail tends to
> run machines as hard as it can, so it may have run the machine into
> the ground.
I'm not 100% sure of how to check, but a
grep SOL_SOCKET *
in the sources didn't return anything. Also, from what I can understand without
really reading all of that #@#@ DJB code, qmail mainly uses pipe and 2 or 3
fifos. AFAIK your commit wasn't intended to change that, but is it possible
that a bug did sneak in?
Anyway, both ways I can trigger the bug (find . -type f | xargs mutt, and
actually running fetchmail -a) do generate a LOT of work, so it's actually
possible that your diagnosis (mbuf exhaustion) is correct; trouble is, this
shouln't hurt the machine to the point I can't even enter DDB.
>
> Also, are you running on alpha or i386?
i386, IBM Thinkpad 570E (not that it being a laptop makes any difference, of
course ;-))
Bye,
Andrea
--
Intel: where Quality is job number 0.9998782345!
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
