on Wed, Sep 10, 2003 at 01:23:22AM -0700, Steve Lamb (grey@dmiyu.org) wrote: > On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 09:07:03 +0100 > "Karsten M. Self" <kmself@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > during this four hour period -- or 1/6 day. That's about 5,760 > > messages/hour (assuming I can read and do math, which may be a stretch). > > So your 1800 messages/hr would be lagging by 3 hours per hour of > > runtime. > > Granted. But all of this came from Craig complaining that not feeding > every message to SA let him process mail on his old machine. He > forgot to mention that being a secondary for Osirus was eating a lot > of cycles. Now he gave a solid figure which I don't have handy but > remember was close to 25,000/week. That's 3571/day. Granted some > weekdays will be higher than weekends. Be that as it may 4-5k/day is > a far cry from 5.8k/hour. IE given the information we had at the time > of his first post it was, uhm, laughable that SA was somehow the > deciding factor in his mail load. Even if he is bursting high > 1800/hour should be able to cover his mail load with that hardware. > Is it enough for heavy usage at a small ISP? Hardly. But for his > setup? Definitely. Full agreement here, along with much of what you've posted elsewhere in this thread. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Defeat EU Software Patents! http://swpat.ffii.org/
Attachment:
pgpzWBYAfAkyL.pgp
Description: PGP signature