"David Dyer-Bennet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 August 2000 at 10:14:56 -0400
> > 
> >   http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
>
>His methodology looks reasonably sound, now that I can read the
>description of it.  And he seems entirely aware of the shortcomings,
>which leads me to trust his judgement on other matters as well.
>
>Looks like qmail took 20 seconds and sendmail took 1750 seconds to
>deliver his test load.  Not surprising!  (uncached case)

I don't see where you got 20 seconds. Here's the results in tabular
form--numbers are all APPROXIMATE since I'm reading them from the
graphs (the individual results by implementation):

             Eval 1          Eval 2          Eval 3
MTA       time    dns     time    dns     time    dns
qmail      155   1250      127   1230      127   1235
Postfix    184   1375      168   1290      161   1330
exim       645    475      161    450      157    451
SMTPfeed   215    610      160    442      157    461
zmailer   1530   1675      357   1260      360   1300

>Also note that in the cached case postfix appears to beat qmail at
>delivering all the mail, at least on one graph.

I don't see that.

>However, did people notice that sendmail actually did *fewer* DNS
>queries?  I had understood that for total bandwidth use, qmail won
>over sendmail partly for doing less DNS traffic, but this doesn't seem
>to be the case in this study.

Yeah, that suprised me, too. Exim wins the prize for DNS frugality,
though.

>(postfix took 30 seconds, exim 500, zmailer I can't tell.  Am I
>reading the graphs wrong?

Where are you seeing these numbers?

>Zmailer shows increasing count of DNS
>queries off to the end of the map, but no increase in SMTP syn or
>fin.  Now I'm confused.)

Me too, because I just don't see that. Which graph(s) are you looking
at?

-Dave

Reply via email to