AW: Not completely OT: Does this affect MailScanner users on RH/FC/CentOS?

[Glenn Steen]

2008/8/29 Ken A <ka at pacific.net>

> Richard Frovarp wrote:
>
>> Alex Neuman van der Hans wrote:
>>
>>> How much of an improvement? Can you describe both the test and the manual
>>> perl compile process and put it up on the wiki?
>>>
>>
>  The test doesn't use MailScanner. We have RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 boxes running
>> MS. Doing the test RHEL 4 is fine, and RHEL5 isn't. However, we have not
>> noticed any performance difference between the two releases when it comes to
>> running MS.
>>
>
> Same here, but with FC6 buggy perl. It would be nice to know if MailScanner
> is affected in any significant way. Why upgrade perl for new bugs when the
> old ones work fine?
>
> Ken

LOL!:-)

Question is if we do anything where the affected calls would be able to
dominate over the normal "slowness" of things... Like DNS/BLs etc... I'm not
that sure that we would see anything significant enough to separate it from
all the other latency:)

Cheers
-- 
-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.mailscanner.info/pipermail/mailscanner/attachments/20080830/cdf986ca/attachment.html