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.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
pgpmwAzxjUnro.pgp
Description: PGP signature