Monbebe Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there (a) comparative table between different list servers,
>in term of posting performances ?
>I mean something like for example:
>
>Machine | Software | Line | Msg Kb | # messages | Average
>---------------------------------------------------------
>PIII500 Linux | Majordomo | T1 | 5 | 2000 | 10 mails/second
>P133 NT | Dolist | 512 | 6 | 400 | 21 mails/second
Such comparisons are only meaningful if they're processing the same
workload from the same location, and there's other critical
information you'd need like which MTA was in use (if the list manager
doesn't handle delivery itself), background load on the server (there
shouldn't be any), OS version, installed RAM, IDE vs. SCSI disks,
which name server cache was used, of any, etc.
Also, average delivery rate isn't too useful for measuring delivery
performance because a handful of slow recipient hosts really skews the
result. You really need to look at the delivery curve, or at least the
rate at which the first, say, 90% of deliveries occur.
My less-than-meaningful contribution is:
system: AlphaServer 2100
CPU: 2 x 200 MHz
RAM: 320 MB
OS: Tru64 UNIX 4.0D
MTA: qmail 1.03
MLM: Majordomo 1.94.4
LAN: 100baseT
WAN: OC3?
name server: dnscache 0.70
background load: INN news server, anonymous FTP
disks: 7200 rpm scsi
message size: 3 KB
recipients: 1846 ([EMAIL PROTECTED] list)
average delivery rate: 7.9 per second
peak delivery rate: 122 per second (45 msgs in a .37 s interval)
90% delivery rate: 21.3 per second
-Dave
