We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of SQL and
IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to not only
improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey signing into the process. The
choice has been made to go with postfix along with a queue direc
en this happens, it would take 1-2 days for the postfix queue on
server1 to clear.
I check the logs and notice the following error:
(delivery temporarily suspended: connect to 10.0.2.73[10.0.2.73]: read
timeout)
I'm quite confident this is a performance tuning related issue.
Serve
Brandon Hilkert:
> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
> of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
> looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
> signing into the process. The choice has been made to go with
> postfix
again for your help!
Brandon
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Postfix users"
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
of SQL and
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
> and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
> simulate sending it out to the internet.
Did you at least take time to rule out th
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 5:12 AM, Victor Duchovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>
>> I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
>> and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
>> simulate sending it ou
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Brandon Hilkert:
>> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
>> of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
>> looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
>> signing in
Brandon Hilkert:
> What's the best way to clearly identify that syslog is the issue?
Look in my reply. There is an example.
Wietse
> - Original Message -
> From: "Victor Duchovni"
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 PM
> Subject: Re
* Brandon Hilkert :
> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
> SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to
> not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey signing into
> the process. The choice has been made to go with postfi
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:52:42 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> As I mentioned, we're using the XFS system for the queue, does that provide
> any additional benefit, or would ext3 perform the same? Keep in mind, we
> will be dealing with 1,000,000 piece mailouts during a session. My findings
> were that
Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
- Original Message -
From: "Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH)"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:52:42 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
As I mentioned, we&#x
* Brandon Hilkert :
> Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
Yes
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbeschimpfung.de
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder,
but when
On Friday 20 March 2009 12:04:22 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
Please do not top post.
We use ext3 to have simple, repeatable, clear server setups without surprises
or pitfalls. Performance is good enough for our needs, so I never actually
What's the best way to clearly identify that syslog is the issue?
- Original Message -
From: "Victor Duchovni"
To:
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I understan
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert :
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We
- Original Message -
From: "Brandon Hilkert"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I also put the queue directory back on an ext3 partition and the rates
went up by about a factor of two.
Also, by default the syslog messages were already set with "
-/var/log/mail.log". I disabled mail logging all together and found no
change in rates.
My disk is w
Brandon Hilkert:
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
>
> mkdir /ram
> mount -t ramfs none /ram
>
> and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space in the queue.
> Should I be doing it a different way?
Postfix requires that the amount of space
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Brandon Hilkert"
Cc:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
mkdir /ram
mount -t ramfs n
Brandon Hilkert:
> >> and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space in the
> >> queue.
> >> Should I be doing it a different way?
> >
> > Postfix requires that the amount of space is several times larger
> > than the message size limit
> >
> > http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Brandon Hilkert"
Cc: "Wietse Venema" ;
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
>> and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> I've been running everything from scripts, hoping to zero in on the
> bottleneck.
How many messages are you sending in parallel in the injector scripts?
SMTP is a high latency half-duplex protocol, and a single injector will
neve
- Original Message -
From: "Victor Duchovni"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I've been running everything from scripts, hoping to zero in on the
bottlen
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:32:26PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Victor Duchovni"
>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Performance tuning
>
>
>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400,
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 6:52 PM, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
> Our test system is a pretty standard SATA disk with 2GB memory. If disk is
> the necessary resource, would we see an immediate benefit by going to a SCSI
> disk or even a SCSI array, or does that hardware benefit flatten out at some
> point
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:27:27AM -0700, J Sloan wrote:
> For what it's worth, we've found ext3 to be far too slow for our needs.
> The best setup we've found is reiserfs, mounted with "noatime" and
> "notail" options -
Lets not start file system wars in this thread. The OP's problem is
largely
>
> To:
> Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Performance tuning
>
>
>> * Brandon Hilkert :
>>
>>> We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
>>> SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're l
Brandon Hilkert:
> >> what is best to look out and compare?
> >
> > When the disk is 100% busy, then it is the bottle neck. Disks can
> > be 100% busy jumping around doing very little I/O.
> >
> > As Noel suggested in earlier email, try running smtp-sink which
> > does no disk I/O at all. If thing
2009/3/21 Brandon Hilkert :
>> When the disk is 100% busy, then it is the bottle neck. Disks can
>> be 100% busy jumping around doing very little I/O.
>>
>> As Noel suggested in earlier email, try running smtp-sink which
>> does no disk I/O at all. If things are still slow, then the problem
>> is
* Brandon Hilkert :
> Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
>
> mkdir /ram
> mount -t ramfs none /ram
YOu need to stop postfix first
You need to make sure postfix users /ram as queue_directory
I'd rather mount things differently (tmpfs on Linux), directly "over
* Brandon Hilkert :
> I was able to get it to mount to tmpfs and it showed no change in
> performance, so that would theoretcially rule out any existing disk issue
> right?
You said ext3 was faster, thus I think your ramfs test was flawed.
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert :
I was able to get it to mount to tmpfs and it showed no change in
performance, so that would theoretcially rule out any existing
* Brandon Hilkert :
>> You said ext3 was faster, thus I think your ramfs test was flawed.
>>
>
> I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
> throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
>
> So that would mean my disk is not a contribution factor right?
Probably.
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
So that would mean my disk is not a contribution factor right?
I'm just following this thread because of curiosity.
tmpfs? Or,
- Original Message -
From: "Duane Hill"
To:
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs
* Brandon Hilkert :
> any thoughts on how to mount the ramfs to get a true test of running the
> queue in memory?
In /etc/fstab:
/dev/shm /var/spool/postfix tmpfs
defaults,size=300m,mode=770,uid=0,gid=0 0 0
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung T
Brandon Hilkert:
> I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
> throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
That depends entirely on how good the script is.
You were talking about sending mail from Exchange though Postfix.
Now you are talking about a home-grown
- Original Message -
From: "Wietse Venema"
To: "Brandon Hilkert"
Cc:
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a
- Original Message -
From: "Ralf Hildebrandt"
To:
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert :
any thoughts on how to mount the ramfs to get a true test of running the
queue in memory?
In /etc/fstab:
/dev/shm
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
So tmpfs does use the ram ? I as able to get tmpfs to work, but there
was some notion that it too uses the disk.
It uses RAM, but will swap to disk if it needs to. There's no guarantee
that it won't cause disk activity.
Terry
* Brandon Hilkert :
>> In /etc/fstab:
>>
>> /dev/shm /var/spool/postfix tmpfs
>> defaults,size=300m,mode=770,uid=0,gid=0 0 0
>>
>
> So tmpfs does use the ram ?
Yep
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerb
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 02:08:51AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
> I'm just following this thread because of curiosity.
>
> tmpfs? Or, do you mean ramfs (like Ralf spoke of). I believe there was a
> response already made by Wietse with regards to tmpfs that stated:
>
> "tmpfs is backed by the swap
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:05:34AM -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
> Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>>
>>
>> So tmpfs does use the ram ? I as able to get tmpfs to work, but there was
>> some notion that it too uses the disk.
>
> It uses RAM, but will swap to disk if it needs to. There's no guarantee
> that i
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
> /etc/postfix/transport:
> server2.com: relay:[10.0.2.73]
>
> /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> relay unix - - n - 200 smtp
> -o smtp_helo_timeout=3s
> -o smtp_connect_timeout=3s
> -o disable_dn
- the settings above are based from reading
TUNING_README.html, it's trial and error.
CP
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500
Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com):
: Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
:
: &
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
>
> > /etc/postfix/transport:
> > server2.com:relay:[10.0.2.73]
> >
> > /etc/postfix/master.cf:
> > relay unix - - n - 200 smtp
> >
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/25/2010 8:01 AM:
> With the settings above, the queue is now down to 2442 within 20
> minutes. It was at 21,000 mark when I sent my first email below
> (nearly 12 hours ago), so the progress has been very minimal until the
> change above. The bottleneck has now
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:21:01PM -0500
Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com):
: Can you provide some more specs on server2? IIRC you said you had a multidisk
: RAID array on serv2. What RAID level and how many disks? What filesystem
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/27/2010 5:50 PM:
> From your questions above, I could see where you're coming from that if
> Server2 has performance problem then it would make sense to see the
> queue built up at Server1. I can confirm server2 is very underload at
> any time, the server is overs
Hi Stan
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:23:15AM -0500
Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com):
: What piqued my curiosity is why the queue on server2 starting growing, and
: rather large at that, _after_ you got the Postfix bottleneck straightened out
- Original Message
> From: Stan Hoeppner
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 2:23:15 AM
> Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
>
> Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/27/2010 5:50 PM:
> From your
> questions above, I could see where yo
- Original Message
> From: Daniel V. Reinhardt
> To: postfix-users@postfix.org
> Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 3:32:04 AM
> Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
>
>
- Original Message
> From: Stan Hoeppner <
> ymailto="mailto:s...@hardw
52 matches
Mail list logo
