Rocco Scappatura:
> >> So.. raising "maxprocs" value for the contet filter could not reduce
> >> delay
> >> "d" in 1) anyway.. Right? To raise "maxprocs" value for the contet
> >> filter
> >> helps only when is the active queue congested.. I think..
> >
> > That depends on how much of that time the filter is busy in the
> > CPU, and how much it spends waiting for DNS or disk I/O.
> >
> > If the filter spends 100% of its time busy in the CPU, then the
> > optimal number of filter processes is a few times the number of
> > CPUs. If the filter spends 50% of its time in the CPU, then the
> > optimal number of filter processes is twice as large.
>
> Very interesting! I will observe closely this a spect.. Thanks.
>
> >> Could you explain - in the same terms - how is quantified the time
> >> before
> >> a message is passed to the queue manager, after it is processed by the
> >> content filter?
> >
> > The time to deliver is measured as the time between MAIL FROM and
> > "end-of-data".
>
> Sorry for my bad english.. To be clearer, given "delays=a/b/c/d" I asked
> for the meaning of "a" delay. I need this definition to understand better
> the difference of time between "d" in 1) and "d" in 2) in the example
> above.
Citing from the HISTORY file:
The information is now logged as "delays=a/b/c/d" where
a=time before queue manager, including message transmission;
a=time from MAIL FROM until queue manager.
Wietse
