Sorry if this is duplicated, I never saw it come thru the first time
so I thought I would resend it.
---original message--------------------------------------------------
You know, I'm not totally sure 2.0.12 is much more stable. Last night
I backed down to 2.0.12, and guess what. Right at startup, signalled
to death by 11. Pisser again.
I'm not running a high volume site by any means, I have mail accounts
for myself and my wife and that's about it. I don't need DB3 storage
(though there are many ways to do just that through procmail).
I subscribe to several (6 or 8) mail lists, and have delivery folders
for each. I still don't think that qualifies as high traffic (by any
stretch of the imagination), but reliability is important.
Once I got my current setup completed and configured, I never had to
touch it. I just had to fiddle with the sendmail.cf stuff when I
added procmail to the process chain. That's really what I want with
the new setup.
I think I will have to work on other aspects of the new system while I
think on the whole 2.0.x thing.
Thanks for your help folks.
Lou
On 07/05/01 08:36 PM, Jeremy Howard sat at the `puter and typed:
> Louis LeBlanc wrote:
> > Now another change in error messages, not lmtp this time. I'm gettin'
> > signalled to death by 11. Pisser.
> >
> > Is 2.0.14 a bad release? I see a few messages in the archives with no
> > solutions.
> >
> 2.0.12 is probably the most stable 2.x release, although it's not great for
> very high volume sites. Other than the scalability issues, I'm not aware of
> any major problems with 2.0.12.
>
> > Gettin real tempted to get back to 1.6.24. Please give me a reason to
> > stick this out!
> >
> The 2.x series have many improvements over 1.6.x, and are being actively
> developed. If you go back to 1.6 now, you'll probably find yourself wanting
> to move to 2.x not far down the track when you want some feature that isn't
> backported (DB3 storage, preforking daemons, generic Unix socket notifier,
> alternative namespace feature, new directory hashing patches, ...) Then
> you'll have to start over and set up your infrastructure all over again.
>
> There--is that a good enough reason ;-) Cyrus 2.0.12 is pretty stable, and
> being used in a number of production environments, including mine
> (http://www.fastmail.fm) and CMU of course. Cyrus 2.0.14 supports higher
> throughput, although some of the changes to achieve this aren't really that
> mature yet. BTW, since you're fighting with your email server anyway, you
> might consider switching to a real MTA, like Postfix
> (http://www.postfix.org), which supports Cyrus OOTB, is much less cryptic to
> configure than Sendmail, and is more secure.
>
> HTH,
> Jeremy
>
>
--
Louis LeBlanc
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://acadia.ne.mediaone.net ԿԬ
