Robert;
Significant performance increases will be seen using the ReiserFS for
Queues dirs due to the small random file counts. You can find all kinds of
info on ReiserFS on the IBM site. The other thing you would really want to
investigate is Sendmail 8.12. Yes, Yes, not just another "go to the new
rev" 8.10 actually performs better in some cases, 8.12 has this
performance plus advantages in the allocation of processes and queue
definition. I do know that SuSE builds of 8.12 are available, have not
checked right away on zSeries. You can always use source.
We have also seen large performance gains on 2.4.18, especially with the
SuSE patch from Andrea (VM33).
Regards,
Jon
Jon R. Doyle
Sendmail Inc.
6425 Christie Ave
Emeryville, Ca. 94608
(o_
(o_ (o_ //\
(/)_ (\)_ V_/_
On Tue, 23 Apr 2002, Robert Werner wrote:
> Hi Moloko,
>
> We made the experience that you cannot compare the load averages directly
> between Intel an Linux/390. Also the shown load average on our linuxes is
> higher using a 2.4 kernel as with kernel 2.2.x (why?)
>
> But if there's really a problem with the performance on the S390 you have to
> find out where your bottleneck is. On our smtp-relay on the z900 (under VM,
> SuSE7.0 with kernel 2.4.7, sendmail 8.11) the disk performance slowed down
> the system and pushed up the load average. A solution is to attach the disks
> using more channels and to stripe the spool-area over several disks and
> channels with LVM or software Raid0.
>
> Sendmail also slows down if the number of mails in your spooldir gets to
> high. So if you have a huge amount of spooled mails it is better to split
> the spool area in several subdirs with dedicated sendmail instances
> processing the queues.
>
> We also had bad performance with kernel 2.2.x.
>
> Robert.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Moloko Monyepao" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 3:35 PM
> Subject: Sendmail Perfomance
>
>
> I have sendmail 8.11.6-3 installed on Redhat 7.2 (server installation) on
> S390(Lpar) with an IFL dedicated to this Lpar. We made the O QueueLA=10 and
> the O RefuseLA=12 which is the same setup as on my Intel machine. When using
> top to check the load the following is what I get. The O
> MaxDaemonChildren=100 on S390 and 300 on Intel.
>
> Intel Machine = The Load average does not go over 10% when setup for both
> incoming and outgoing mail.
>
> S390 Machine = The Load average goes to more than 10% and it start rejecting
> connections if we set it up for both incoming and outgoing mail and it gets
> up to about 6 to 8% if we only set it up for outgoing mail which is not a
> lot.
>
> Please assist
> Moloko
>
