Well, seeing as though the 'popper' command has nothing to do with the
Compaq EFS, and nothing to do with 'Sendmail', I beleive you're looking down
the wrong track. A number of times on machines of various makes, the
'popper' program (which is what actually allows the user to 'POP' mail off
the server) goes rabid and chews resources, but we've never had a situation
where it actually caused any real problems (only did that for a few
seconds). Only other time I've seen it is when the mailbox is exteremely
large (in excess of 15+Mb). Get a few of those going, and the server just
takes a dive (this is what happens on our in-house server, mind you that's
only an OLD P90).
We've got PII 500's etc. out there with no such problems..
Might wanna track down if it's the same user causing the problem ever time,
what kind of mail they are trying to pop off the server, what email client
they are using, how big their mailbox is etc. etc. etc.
hope this gives you a bit of a head start.
Yes! I am a pixie!
> OpenServer 5.0.5 and Compaq's EFS 5.26a.
> The system was installed with Compaq's Smart Start which installed a "UDK
> Compatibility Module for OS 5.0.5 (ver 5.0.5a)", but NOT rs505a!
> I'll have to get it installed which from what I've been reading is rather
> pain on Compaq machines (because of the EFS's).
> > What version of Sco do you have and what patches are loaded?
> > says...
> > > Hello,
> > > We are running SCO SendMail ver 8.8.8b which is working well except
> > > twice now we have had the system get very slow only to find the cpu
> > > time at 0% and multiple popper processes running which are acruing all
> > > time. Once I kill them (a -9 is required) the system performance comes
> > > and everything works fine.
> > > What would cause popper processes to continue running? There are
> > > users checking their mail throughout the day and all their processes
> > > get stuck, there must be something causing some of them to get in a
> > > continue running.
> > > Thanks for any information or assistance.
> > > Later,
> > > John.