From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:20:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:20:22 -0500 Received: from vger.timpanogas.org ([207.109.151.240]:29957 "EHLO vger.timpanogas.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:20:16 -0500 Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:16:18 -0700 From: "Jeff V. Merkey" To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Ralf Baechle , "Jeff V. Merkey" , "H. Peter Anvin" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: sendmail fails to deliver mail with attachments in /var/spool/mqueue Message-ID: <20001110201618.B3285@vger.timpanogas.org> In-Reply-To: <3A0C3F30.F5EB076E@timpanogas.org> <3A0C6B7C.110902B4@timpanogas.org> <3A0C6E01.EFA10590@timpanogas.org> <26054.973893835@euclid.cs.niu.edu> <8uhs7c$2hr$1@cesium.transmeta.com> <3A0C76C0.CAC8B9D4@timpanogas.org> <20001111024440.E29352@bacchus.dhis.org> <3A0CA4F5.4715FE49@transmeta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0.1i In-Reply-To: <3A0CA4F5.4715FE49@transmeta.com>; from hpa@transmeta.com on Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 05:46:29PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > Ralf Baechle wrote: > > > > Jeff, > > > > On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 03:29:20PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote: > > > > > Well, here's what the sendmail folks **REAL** opinion of Linux is and > > > the way load average is calculated (senders name removed) > > > > > > [... sendmail person ...] > > > > > > Ok, here's my blunt answer: Linux sucks. Why does it have a load > > > > average of 10 if there are two processes running? Let's check the > > > > man page: > > > > > > > > and the three load averages for the system. The load > > > > averages are the average number of process ready to > > > > run during the last 1, 5 and 15 minutes. This line > > > > is just like the output of uptime(1). > > > > > > > > So: Linux load average on these systems is broken. > > > > Or the documentation is b0rken? This is how the load figure is actually > > calculated: > > > > /* > > * Nr of active tasks - counted in fixed-point numbers > > */ > > static unsigned long count_active_tasks(void) > > { > > struct task_struct *p; > > unsigned long nr = 0; > > > > read_lock(&tasklist_lock); > > for_each_task(p) { > > if ((p->state == TASK_RUNNING || > > (p->state & TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE))) > > nr += FIXED_1; > > } > > read_unlock(&tasklist_lock); > > return nr; > > } > > > > Yes, the documentation is broken. Linus did in fact implement this > change because it made most daemons behave significantly better. This > ought to include sendmail; it's just that on modern systems the numbers > get a little too high for it. So everyone should up their defaults for most commercial Linux versions. Jeff > > -hpa > > -- > at work, in private! > "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." > http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/