On Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2006 17:04 Justin McAleer wrote:
> I just got done putting postgres 8.2 in
> place, as a matter of fact, and it delivered the 1000
> messages in 9 seconds ;) Seemed to perform a little better
> than 8.1.4, although on a scale that's harder to find a
> worthwhile metric t
On Sat, 2006-12-09 at 08:53 -0800, List Receiver wrote:
> Has anyone come up with a way to benchmark POP/IMAP performance?
MStone: http://mstone.sourceforge.net/
I started setting up a test bed, but got sidelined for a while. Take a
stab at it and see what you can see!
Aaron
List Receiver wrote:
Ok, I just did the test on mysql 5.0.27. It took 73 seconds
to deliver the 1000 messages. So, it's a good bit faster than
4.1.20's 95 seconds, but still pales in comparison to
postgres' 9 seconds. Mysql was still peaking both cpu cores
during delivery.
Good to
> Ok, I just did the test on mysql 5.0.27. It took 73 seconds
> to deliver the 1000 messages. So, it's a good bit faster than
> 4.1.20's 95 seconds, but still pales in comparison to
> postgres' 9 seconds. Mysql was still peaking both cpu cores
> during delivery.
>
>
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11
Ok, I just did the test on mysql 5.0.27. It took 73 seconds
to deliver the 1000 messages. So, it's a good bit faster
than 4.1.20's 95 seconds, but still pales in comparison to
postgres' 9 seconds. Mysql was still peaking both cpu cores
during delivery.
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 11:23:58 -0800
Michael
Matthew O'Connor wrote:
Lars Kneschke wrote:
Justin McAleer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
I think a test of 5.0 and 8.2 would be great! Recent benchmarks of the
two show pg really blows the socks off mysql, so a confirmation of that
in the email segmnent would be terrific!!!
Michael
Quick reply to your first question, as the time I did these
tests, the two mailboxes I was sending mail into had tend
of thousands of messages in them, but no other accounts had
anything. On disk, the database seemed to be about 4 GB (du
-s output, so...). I've seen no performance degradation, so
f
Version ages are fair enough, I'll get mysql 5.0 installed
and run that. I just got done putting postgres 8.2 in
place, as a matter of fact, and it delivered the 1000
messages in 9 seconds ;) Seemed to perform a little better
than 8.1.4, although on a scale that's harder to find a
worthwhile metric
Lars Kneschke wrote:
Justin McAleer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
Mysql: 95 seconds to deliver all 1000 messages. Both cores
on the DB server were effectively peaked during delivery.
Postgres: 10 seconds to deliver all 1000 messages. DBMail
was really close to being able to deliver as fast as
po
Justin McAleer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> Mysql: 95 seconds to deliver all 1000 messages. Both cores
> on the DB server were effectively peaked during delivery.
>
> Postgres: 10 seconds to deliver all 1000 messages. DBMail
> was really close to being able to deliver as fast as
> postfix could
Hi Justin,
On 7-dec-2006, at 15:13, Justin McAleer wrote:
I figured I would go ahead and toss this out for anybody
that may be interested, since I was so shocked by the
results. I have two servers set up for testing, one running
postfix/dbmail and one running the database servers. The
database
I figured I would go ahead and toss this out for anybody
that may be interested, since I was so shocked by the
results. I have two servers set up for testing, one running
postfix/dbmail and one running the database servers. The
database machine is a dual core AMD (4400+ I believe) with
4 gigs of me
12 matches
Mail list logo
