Fri, 16 Feb 2001 00:14:17 -0500
|
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:44:39 CST, Steve Price said:
> The only ones that look like they might get anywhere close to mattering
> are 'data seg size' and 'stack size'. The former is still quite a
> bit more than the 128M that you mentioned. How high did you have to go
> with your setting? This listserv handles four lists and a few hundred
> subscribers.
Umm.. the lsv process hovers around 190M. That's with 3,500+ lists
and a bunch of subscribers.
> As for the stack size, it doesn't seem like listserv would need more than
> a 64K stack, but I'm willing to up it and give it a try. Thanks for the
> suggestions.
Umm.. no.. that's a 64*M* stack..
Of course, it *could* be crashing due to a bug. ;)
The trick here is to catch several coredumps, and see if it's crashing
at the same stack traceback each time (indicating a bug) or if it's
blowing up very randomly (indicating something external, or a memory-overlay
bug that causes problems way down the line).
Good luck. ;)
/Valdis
|
|
|