I think there's a small design flaw with the once-in-a-wile VERPing scheme.
My biggest list is 180k subscribers, and I've set up Mailman to VERP once
every 10th message. Well, it happened today that the big list was hit by its
VERP time, and it's a bit awful - it looks like the list has taken
At 11:08 AM +0200 2004-07-13, Fil wrote:
Here's the smtp log line:
Jul 13 02:05:22 2004 (435) [EMAIL PROTECTED] smtp
for 152991 recips, completed in 31782.241 seconds
How does this compare to a normal, non-VERPed delivery for this list?
I ask because Chuq Von Rospach has done some
for 152991 recips, completed in 31782.241 seconds
How does this compare to a normal, non-VERPed delivery for this list?
grep -E 1. recips logs/smtp
May 27 16:43:46 2004 (440) [EMAIL PROTECTED] smtp
for 151942 recips, completed in 1231.438 seconds
Jun 11 19:05:45
For example, it might be faster/lower overall load on the server if we had
the MTA do the VERPing for us -- we're pretty sure that's supported by
some MTAs (e.g., at least some versions of Exim), and we know it's faster
for at least some of them (e.g., Exim).
Sorry, for postfix indeed it
Here's the smtp log line:
Jul 13 02:05:22 2004 (435) [EMAIL PROTECTED] smtp
for 152991 recips, completed in 31782.241 seconds
.../...
In any case, 2 seconds per VERP message for such a big list is too costly,
Someone kindly told me this makes only 0.2s /message, not 2 seconds
-- Fil
At 2:28 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Fil wrote:
for 152991 recips, completed in 31782.241 seconds
How does this compare to a normal, non-VERPed delivery for this list?
grep -E 1. recips logs/smtp
May 27 16:43:46 2004 (440) [EMAIL PROTECTED] smtp
for 151942 recips, completed in
At 2:32 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Fil wrote:
Sorry, for postfix indeed it might be much easier to do it this way:
http://www.postfix.org/VERP_README.html#smtp
the only change between non-verp and verp call to the SMTP server is to
replace
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
by
MAIL
At 3:26 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Brad Knowles wrote:
Usually the sending (mailman to postfix to 90% of users) takes a bit more
than two hours ; yesterday it took about 6 hours. But more importantly, the
Mailman - postfix thing took 5 hours instead of ~ 15 minutes.
I will definitely update
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:52:16 +0200
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is really more of an MTA limitation, although there might be some
things we can do to try to work around it with Mailman. For example,
it might be faster/lower overall load on the server if we had the MTA
do the
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:28:34 +0200
fil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I ask because Chuq Von Rospach has done some calculations on what
should theoretically happen to your performance if you enable VERP,
but I don't know of anyone who has actually timed the performance
difference on large lists.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:44:11 +0200
fil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here's the smtp log line: Jul 13 02:05:22 2004 (435)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] smtp for 152991 recips,
completed in 31782.241 seconds
.../...
In any case, 2 seconds per VERP message for such a big list is too
costly,
Someone kindly
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:26:58 +0200
Brad Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I will definitely update the VERP performance entry in the FAQ to
reference your experience.
I wouldn't, not yet. The numbers are too far off from reasonable
expectation. I'd bet there are other strongly unknown
Hey JC,
Any FAQ on your quick-poke tunings?
Bob
-- Original Message ---
From: J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ObNote: I found I could sustain 2,400 deliveries per minute with a
quick-poke tuned Postfix on a 512Meg RAM PII-333 with separate
spindles for spool and log.
On Jul 12, 2004, at 8:26 PM, Christian Robottom Reis wrote:
On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 08:56:09AM -0400, J C Lawrence wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 20:38:42 -0300
Christian Robottom Reis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just a heads-up for bug 930819, which has a patch (two now) that adds
onload form focus to
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:22 -0400
Bob Puff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Any FAQ on your quick-poke tunings?
I don't recall anything off the top of my head that's not in the list
archives or the User FAQ (I reported on it at the time in both places
IIRC). I've not run Postfix for some years now
But more importantly, the Mailman - postfix thing took 5 hours
instead of ~ 15 minutes.
What system metrics spiked during this time?
None!
160K/5 hours is a delivery rate of less than 600 per minute. That's one
message every 10+ seconds which is quite slow. Even if you double that
Hi all,
not sure anymore if there is a function or parameter to get your whole
memberlist in a textfile.
Does anyone know?
Thanx in advance,
Nick
___
Mailman-Developers mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:22:26 +0200
fil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the MTA *was* twiddling its thumbs, and the system too... and as
Mailman's daemon was sending one VERP msg at a time, it was not
processing the usual incoming stuff, and not delivering the other
lists.
v2.x or v1.x? I
Yes, the MTA *was* twiddling its thumbs, and the system too... and as
Mailman's daemon was sending one VERP msg at a time, it was not
processing the usual incoming stuff, and not delivering the other
lists.
v2.x or v1.x?
version 2.1.5b1
I thought v2 chunked the queue processing...
Sorry, for postfix indeed it might be much easier to do it this way:
http://www.postfix.org/VERP_README.html#smtp
the only change between non-verp and verp call to the SMTP server is to
replace
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
by
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] XVERP=+=
At 5:24 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Nick vd Kloor @ FOR-Nation wrote:
not sure anymore if there is a function or parameter to get your whole
memberlist in a textfile.
Does anyone know?
See http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py?req=showfile=faq04.009.htp.
--
Brad Knowles, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Those
Fil [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Probably, yes. I don't konw if postfix can do it on demand, though there
is http://www.postfix.org/VERP_README.html
It does if you pass it the right options.
Rather than having mailman do the VERPing, I let postfix handle
it. Performance is greatly improved,
On Tue, 2004-07-13 at 12:52, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 11:08 AM +0200 2004-07-13, Fil wrote:
I hope this feedback can be useful, if you have scalability in mind for MM3.
This is really more of an MTA limitation, although there might be
some things we can do to try to work around it
At 9:54 AM -0700 2004-07-13, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
Rather than having mailman do the VERPing, I let postfix handle
it. Performance is greatly improved, because at the least you
can then have multiple recipients per queue file.
Can you tell us what modifications you've made to mailman to
--- J C Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 17:24:11 +0200
Nick vd Kloor @ FOR-Nation [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all, not sure anymore if there is a function or parameter to get
your whole memberlist in a textfile. Does anyone know?
~/bin/list_members.
It would be
On Jul 13, 2004, at 3:58 PM, Nadim Shaikli wrote:
It would be nice if 'list_members' also listed all the other secondary
info to ease exports/imports and/or list moves,
- Digest on/off
- Members name (if entered)
- mod/hide/etc/etc
Sounds good as long as it's optional and can be turned off.
Fil wrote:
For example, it might be faster/lower overall load on the server if we had
the MTA do the VERPing for us -- we're pretty sure that's supported by
some MTAs (e.g., at least some versions of Exim), and we know it's faster
for at least some of them (e.g., Exim).
Sorry, for postfix indeed
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 01:28, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 2:32 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Fil wrote:
the only change between non-verp and verp call to the SMTP server is to
replace
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
by
MAIL FROM:[EMAIL PROTECTED] XVERP=+=
I don't know what this
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 12:58:11 -0700 (PDT)
Nadim Shaikli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It would be nice if 'list_members' also listed all the other secondary
info to ease exports/imports and/or list moves,
You can use with-list for that.
--
J C Lawrence
-(*)Satan,
29 matches
Mail list logo
