hello, 400 mhz pentium 2 320 ram redhat linux 6.0,ive recently installed mailman,now i had a problem with the memory originally i had 64 ram so i added another 256 in there it would choke with only 64,so i had to bring the open connection option (num_spawns ) down to 1 but it would take forever so what sould the setting be for my profile running sendmail the default was 5 should i put it at 5? i have pretty large mailing lists 20,000 members range. Thanks.
Quoting Webmaster (webmaster@virtualbungalow.com):
added another 256 in there it would choke with only 64,so i had to bring the open connection option (num_spawns ) down to 1 but it would take forever so what sould the setting be for my profile running sendmail the default was 5 should i put it at 5? i have pretty large mailing lists 20,000 members range.
A list that big should *not* be using sendmail. It's just too damn slow. Switch to postfix, emin, or even (god help us) qmail.
-- Paul Tomblin <ptomblin@xcski.com>, not speaking for anybody " Those are my principles. If you don't like them I have others. " - Groucho Marx
Paul Tomblin (ptomblin@xcski.com) wrote:
Quoting Webmaster (webmaster@virtualbungalow.com):
added another 256 in there it would choke with only 64,so i had to bring the open connection option (num_spawns ) down to 1 but it would take forever so what sould the setting be for my profile running sendmail the default was 5 should i put it at 5? i have pretty large mailing lists 20,000 members range.
A list that big should *not* be using sendmail. It's just too damn slow. Switch to postfix, emin, or even (god help us) qmail.
Is it fair to point out that sendmail was doing lists this size
before postfix, qmail and their ilk were even ideas?
admitted, they had things like "bulk_mailer" to sort the addresses
by domain and split them into manageable chunks.
maybe mailman needs to do something like that if it detects its talking
to sendmail and not postfix/qmail masquerading ...
P-- Remember The 5 K's. The Justified Agents of Munya-munya-muuuu ...
--On Monday, May 1, 2000 11:49 PM +0900 Peter Evans <peter@gol.com> wrote:
Paul Tomblin (ptomblin@xcski.com) wrote:
Quoting Webmaster (webmaster@virtualbungalow.com):
added another 256 in there it would choke with only 64,so i had to bring the open connection option (num_spawns ) down to 1 but it would take forever so what sould the setting be for my profile running sendmail the default was 5 should i put it at 5? i have pretty large mailing lists 20,000 members range.
A list that big should *not* be using sendmail. It's just too damn slow. Switch to postfix, emin, or even (god help us) qmail.
Is it fair to point out that sendmail was doing lists this size before postfix, qmail and their ilk were even ideas?
admitted, they had things like "bulk_mailer" to sort the addresses by domain and split them into manageable chunks.
maybe mailman needs to do something like that if it detects its talking to sendmail and not postfix/qmail masquerading ...
This would be nice. Currently, large lists just time out from the CGI script with no errors logged any where, at least when using sendmail. Will be trying postfix today and hopefully that will help.
s
P
-- Remember The 5 K's. The Justified Agents of Munya-munya-muuuu ...
Mailman-Users maillist - Mailman-Users@python.org http://www.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users
-- Scott R. Every - mailto:scott@emji.net EMJ Internet - http://www.emji.net voice : 1-888-258-8959 fax : 1-919-363-4425
participants (4)
-
Paul Tomblin -
Peter Evans -
Scott R. Every -
Webmaster