Strange load situation

[Jethro R Binks]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Steve Campbell wrote:

> Can anyone indicate they have seen similar results? I'm not real 
> concerned yet, at least not until I see that it's not going to catch up. 
> The purge seemed to have been working, but I thought maybe there was a 
> little bit too much in the maillog table - turns out not so. This would 
> almost indicate it's better to slow down my MS scan interval and let 
> more messages per batch be scanned per child, or maybe lower my messages 
> per batch.

When I first installed MailScanner in a large environment, I found I had 
to juggle the numbers relating to number of messages per batch, number of 
processed, and max size of batch, to reach a happy medium where it 
processed messages quickly to not let them build up, but without spawning 
so many processes that machine got bogged down switching between them.  I 
certainly found that too many MailScanner processes was detrimental.

Jethro.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Jethro R Binks
Computing Officer, IT Services
University Of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK