Brandon Hilkert:
> What's the best way to clearly identify that syslog is the issue?
Look in my reply. There is an example.
Wietse
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Victor Duchovni" <victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com>
> To: <postfix-users@postfix.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Performance tuning
>
>
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> >
> >> I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
> >> and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
> >> simulate sending it out to the internet.
> >
> > Did you at least take time to rule out the "syslog" bottleneck? This is
> > a common problem with stock Linux configurations, where syslog hammers
> > the disk so hard that Postfix can't get any I/O done. Throughput as low
> > as 10 msgs/sec is strongly suggestive of something like that, or perhaps
> > just failure to send in parallel, or insufficient concurrency in output
> > processing because all the test messages are routed to the same local(8)
> > mailbox.
> >
> > Linux servers that are 5 years can do 300-400 msgs/sec, when the disk is
> > managed by a RAID controller with an 8MB battery cache, and IIRC somewhere
> > between 50 and 100 msgs/sec with the cache off.
> >
> > Start with syslog, then figure out where the messages are accumulating,
> > see QSHAPE_README.
> >
> > --
> > Viktor.
> >
> > Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
> > Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
> >
> > To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
> > http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
> > <mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
> >
> > If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
> > send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
> > "It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
>
>
>
