Fwd: New Batch: Found 1768 messages waiting

[Tracy Greggs]

I would have to second the vote for Crucial.  Hate to plug vendors as well,
but certainly a great choice.

 

Tracy

 

 

  _____  

From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info
[mailto:mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of dnsadmin
1bigthink.com
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 11:55 AM
To: MailScanner discussion
Subject: RE: Fwd: New Batch: Found 1768 messages waiting

 

At 12:36 PM 3/3/2006, you wrote:







> -----Original Message-----
> From: mailscanner-bounces at lists.mailscanner.info [mailto:mailscanner-
> bounces at lists.mailscanner.info] On Behalf Of TAC Forums
> Sent: 03 March 2006 17:16
> To: MailScanner discussion
> Subject: Re: Fwd: New Batch: Found 1768 messages waiting
> 
> > With that number of messages waiting and only 256Mb of RAM your machine
> > will be almost at a stand still I would have thought. How many children
> > are you running as doubling the RAM should mean you can increase the
> child
> > processes?
> >
> > Drew
> 
> 
> The server is a Cobalt RaQ 550 which has a P-III processor (1 GHz) and
> I've configured it to run only one child process. How much do you
> suggest I should increase it to?
> --
> MailScanner mailing list
> mailscanner at lists.mailscanner.info
> http://lists.mailscanner.info/mailman/listinfo/mailscanner
> 
> Before posting, read http://wiki.mailscanner.info/posting
> 
> Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!

AS much as you can squeeze into the thing..


The Cobalt maxes  out at 512MB, I think. You can look up maximum amount and
type SDRAM replacement at www.crucial.com.

Sorry, not an advertising plug! You can buy the ram elsewhere!

Thanks,
Glenn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20060303/de9f5a9c/attachment.html