[rbldnsd] Possible Small Bug

[David Cary Hart]

On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 12:27 -0500, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jeff Chan wrote:
> 
> It's hard to make any load comparisons based on "blocked 3000 spams/day"
> since you don't know how many queries rbldnsd handled with negative
> answers.
> 
> But...I'm seeing PII/PIII Celeron 400-500mhz systems handling >1300qps and
> rbldnsd keeps on trucking.

Actually, you need to use extended erlang (a modified chi distribution)
to ascertain peek stress but that's WAY too complex. I am satisfied to
know that, in our environment, rbldnsd uses considerably less memory and
fewer cycles than, say, ntpd.
________________________________________________________________________
Total Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence
http://www.TQMcube.com