"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
