Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

dbf2mysql parameter, WWWXXXAPC, wwwxxxAPC, How to unsubscrube from dategen spam, docmd.close 2585, WWWXXXDOCO, nu vot, dhcpd lease file "binding state", WWWXXXDOCO, how to setup procmail to process html2text

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: "load average too high" VS "XXX children, max XXX"

Posted on 2008-04-04 09:37:56 by Riccardo

I don't understand what is difference when sendmail rejects
connections showing:

1- load average too high
2- XXX children, max XXX

But if load average increases, I think sendmail processes also
increase to reach max children, so it's a consequence of this event.
What do you think ?

Report this message

#2: Re: "load average too high" VS "XXX children, max XXX"

Posted on 2008-04-04 12:02:18 by Tilman Schmidt

RICCARDO schrieb:
> I don't understand what is difference when sendmail rejects
> connections showing:
>
> 1- load average too high
> 2- XXX children, max XXX

Two fundamental differences:
- "load average" includes non-Sendmail processes, "children" doesn't
- "load average" counts processes actually wanting to run, "children"
may include sleeping processes

> But if load average increases, I think sendmail processes also
> increase to reach max children, so it's a consequence of this event.

Not necessarily. Each of the two can happen without the other one.
- If you run other things besides Sendmail on the same server,
"load average" will go up but "children" won't.
- If clients connect to your Sendmail service but dont send anything,
"children" will go up but "load average" won't.

HTH
T.

--
Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Report this message

#3: Re: "load average too high" VS "XXX children, max XXX"

Posted on 2008-04-08 11:29:03 by Riccardo

On 4 Apr, 12:02, Tilman Schmidt <ts-usenet0...@pxnet.com> wrote:
> RICCARDO schrieb:
>
> > I don't understand what is difference when sendmail rejects
> > connections showing:
>
> > 1- load average too high
> > 2- XXX children, max XXX
>
> Two fundamental differences:
> - "load average" includes non-Sendmail processes, "children" doesn't
> - "load average" counts processes actually wanting to run, "children"
> may include sleeping processes
>
> > But if load average increases, I think sendmail processes also
> > increase to reach max children, so it's a consequence of this event.
>
> Not necessarily. Each of the two can happen without the other one.
> - If you run other things besides Sendmail on the same server,
> "load average" will go up but "children" won't.
> - If clients connect to your Sendmail service but dont send anything,
> "children" will go up but "load average" won't.
>
> HTH
> T.
>
> --
> Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

What disadvantages I can find if I increase childrens processes ?
If I add ram module for upgrading from 1 GB to 2 GB can i solve
problem ?
My top command shows:

11:28:43 up 295 days, 1:10, 3 users, load average: 2.77, 2.58,
2.46
174 processes: 173 sleeping, 1 running, 0 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states: cpu user nice system irq softirq iowait
idle
total 13.4% 0.0% 13.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
73.0%
Mem: 1032748k av, 1018808k used, 13940k free, 0k shrd,
93724k buff
387792k active, 581324k inactive
Swap: 3068372k av, 254120k used, 2814252k free
348256k cached

Report this message

#4: Re: "load average too high" VS "XXX children, max XXX"

Posted on 2008-04-09 11:20:26 by Tilman Schmidt

RICCARDO schrieb:
> What disadvantages I can find if I increase childrens processes ?

Sendmail will run more SMTP sessions in parallel, and as your server is
pretty loaded already, each session will take proportionally longer to
complete.

> If I add ram module for upgrading from 1 GB to 2 GB can i solve
> problem ?

I wouldn't think so. Judging from your "top" output the server is not
paging, just overloaded. Adding RAM might help a little by increased
disk caching, but not very much. Depending on what that machine does,
it might help to add faster disks, a second processor, or just to
offload some of its task to another box.

HTH
T.

--
Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Report this message

#5: Re: "load average too high" VS "XXX children, max XXX"

Posted on 2008-04-10 11:58:50 by Riccardo

On 4 Apr, 12:02, Tilman Schmidt <ts-usenet0...@pxnet.com> wrote:
> RICCARDO schrieb:
>
> > I don't understand what is difference when sendmail rejects
> > connections showing:
>
> > 1- load average too high
> > 2- XXX children, max XXX
>
> Two fundamental differences:
> - "load average" includes non-Sendmail processes, "children" doesn't
> - "load average" counts processes actually wanting to run, "children"
> may include sleeping processes
>
> > But if load average increases, I think sendmail processes also
> > increase to reach max children, so it's a consequence of this event.
>
> Not necessarily. Each of the two can happen without the other one.
> - If you run other things besides Sendmail on the same server,
> "load average" will go up but "children" won't.
> - If clients connect to your Sendmail service but dont send anything,
> "children" will go up but "load average" won't.
>
> HTH
> T.
>
> --
> Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

I'm not understanding: load average is low, no high cpu usage of
sendmail process, no swap operations.
This children number increases if many MTA connect to my mail server,
I think.
What do you think if I increase MaxDaemonChildren from 150 to 300 ?

Report this message

#6: Re: "load average too high" VS "XXX children, max XXX"

Posted on 2008-04-15 14:36:32 by Tilman Schmidt

RICCARDO schrieb:
> I'm not understanding: load average is low, no high cpu usage of
> sendmail process, no swap operations.
> This children number increases if many MTA connect to my mail server,
> I think.
> What do you think if I increase MaxDaemonChildren from 150 to 300 ?

Just try it. If it helps, keep it. If your server starts to swap,
reduce it again. Otherwise it won't hurt.

HTH
T.

--
Please excuse my bad English/German/French/Greek/Cantonese/Klingon/...

Report this message