: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: Sendmail Perfomance
Robert!
According to our monitoring we did not notice any perfomance problems on the
disks or the network. The disk is using Raid0 on about 4 disk which can be
reached by about (4 ficon channels and 4 escon channels shared between 5
PROTECTED]
Subject: Sendmail Perfomance
I have sendmail 8.11.6-3 installed on Redhat 7.2 (server installation) on
S390(Lpar) with an IFL dedicated to this Lpar. We made the O QueueLA=10 and
the O RefuseLA=12 which is the same setup as on my Intel machine. When using
top to check the load
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
We have also seen large performance gains on 2.4.18, especially with
the SuSE patch from Andrea (VM33).
I don't know why, but disk performance improved on several Intel/AMD boxes I use
by around 30% at 2.4.17.
As measured by hdparm, but bonnie/bonnie++ backed that up
I think that is when Andrea's work went in to mainline. On SuSE builds it
is there for all platforms. I think some of the -aa tree went into the
mainline, with other pieces from Andrew. I would have to look back over
the 10k lkml entries :~)
You will also see some gains over the stock using
Hi Jon,
Significant performance increases will be seen using the ReiserFS for
Queues dirs due to the small random file counts. You can find all kinds of
info on ReiserFS on the IBM site. The other thing you would really want to
investigate is Sendmail 8.12. Yes, Yes, not just another go to
used in the Sendmail deployments we do, as the Queues or mailstores can
become corrupt, especially with the large Cache on today's controllers.
EXT2 does not fsync or dirsync correctly, we had to place patches into
8.12 code base for this problematic issue (people that use EXT2 anyway).
This
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
used in the Sendmail deployments we do, as the Queues or mailstores can
become corrupt, especially with the large Cache on today's controllers.
EXT2 does not fsync or dirsync correctly, we had to place patches into
8.12 code base for this problematic
In fact Domino was rejected until they chattr or mounted EXT2 in -sync.
From my memory when I spoke to Claus and Greg here the ISV being required
to make specific calls to a FS was hard to swallow. However, we did do
this in 8.12
Standards exist for a reason. If there really is a problem
-Original Message-
From: Post, Mark K [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 April 2002 16:44
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sendmail Perfomance
Moloko,
You still have not answered the question of just how busy your S/390 CPU is
when the load average is at 10. (Not 10
: Robert Werner [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 23 April 2002 16:41
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Sendmail Perfomance
Hi Moloko,
We made the experience that you cannot compare the load averages directly
between Intel an Linux/390. Also the shown load average on our linuxes
10 matches
Mail list logo
