Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Emanuel writes: Can the files header/body_checks generate overload? On 19.04.18 00:05, micah wrote: Yes. I recently tried to load the malware patrol header check list, which has 49349 lines as a regexp body check, and I quickly had to stop doing that because the

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

On 19 April 2018 at 07:21, Peer Heinlein wrote: > > You can save a lot of cpu ressources if you use... > > ...pcre instead of regexp (mostly the syntax is the same, but the engine > is better, just change the prefix!) Check if supported with: # postconf -m|grep

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Am 18.04.2018 um 20:51 schrieb Emanuel: > Can the files header/body_checks generate overload? If you have many header/body_checks you'll see a higher usage of the cleanup process in tools like "top". You can save a lot of cpu ressources if you use... ...pcre instead of regexp (mostly the syntax

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Emanuel writes: > Can the files header/body_checks generate overload? Yes. I recently tried to load the malware patrol header check list, which has 49349 lines as a regexp body check, and I quickly had to stop doing that because the resource usage of the machine

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

> On Apr 18, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Emanuel wrote: > > smtpd_recipient_limit = 20 RFC5321 requires at least 100. Unnecessarily splitting the envelope does not help performance. -- Viktor.

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Emanuel: > Can the files header/body_checks generate overload? I have not seen evidence that the cleanup daemon is responsible for a performance issue. Absent meaningful info, no support. Wietse

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Can the files header/body_checks generate overload? Postfix configuration: default_process_limit = 300 smtpd_client_connection_count_limit = 2000 smtpd_recipient_limit = 20 Any information you give me is helpful. El 18/04/18 a las 14:00, Wietse Venema escribió: Limit the number of

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Emanuel: [ Charset windows-1252 converted... ] > Hello everyone, I'm representing a performance problem on my server. > > I explain in detail the configuration of my server. > > I am using postfix with 46 IPs configured as a mta, with round-robin, in > the master.cf file > > I think the

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

El 18/04/18 a las 12:03, Matus UHLAR - fantomas escribió: On 18.04.18 11:00, Emanuel wrote: Hello everyone, I'm representing a performance problem on my server. I explain in detail the configuration of my server. I am using postfix with 46 IPs configured as a mta, with round-robin, in the

Re: Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

On 18.04.18 11:00, Emanuel wrote: Hello everyone, I'm representing a performance problem on my server. I explain in detail the configuration of my server. I am using postfix with 46 IPs configured as a mta, with round-robin, in the master.cf file 46 IPs? why? I think the "cleanup" process

Postfix performance problem (cleanup process)

Hello everyone, I'm representing a performance problem on my server. I explain in detail the configuration of my server. I am using postfix with 46 IPs configured as a mta, with round-robin, in the master.cf file I think the "cleanup" process is responsible for the excessive use of cpu. ps

Sudden degradation in Postfix performance.

Greetings, I've been using Postfix for many years - since about 2002 - and I've finally come across a problem I've not been able to resolve by searching online, or from tapping into my personal network. So I have come to you all for help. I have two machines: Machine A: My primary 8 core Xeon

Re: Sudden degradation in Postfix performance.

Am 21.12.2014 um 10:13 schrieb Jonathan K. Tullett jonathan+postfix@dda.systems: Greetings, I've been using Postfix for many years - since about 2002 - and I've finally come across a problem I've not been able to resolve by searching online, or from tapping into my personal network.

Re: Sudden degradation in Postfix performance.

Christian R??ner: Prior to the last week of October using the distribution manager, it was possible on machine A to inject around 25 messages (full size - about 70k each) a second into the maildrop queue. Since the end of October, that number has dropped to 16 a second on a good day. What

Re: Sudden degradation in Postfix performance.

On 12/21/2014 3:13 AM, Jonathan K. Tullett wrote: Greetings, I've been using Postfix for many years - since about 2002 - and I've finally come across a problem I've not been able to resolve by searching online, or from tapping into my personal network. So I have come to you all for help.

Re: Sudden degradation in Postfix performance.

On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 09:13:53AM +, Jonathan K. Tullett wrote: Have there been huge improvements to the efficiency of the code base between 2.6 and 2.9 (or 2.11)? Does anyone have suggestions on where else I can look for the cause? Thank you in advance for any help you can provide.

Re: Sudden degradation in Postfix performance.

Jonathan K. Tullett: On 21 December 2014 at 13:56, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote: Since the end of October, that number has dropped to 16 a second on a good day. What has changed? Obiously, Postfix didn't change, and replacing Postfix isn't going to make a difference.

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

Hi, I’ve done some testing with swaks trying to track my performance issue. I don’t think this is a postfix issue. It is just the most apparent symptom. I’ve also noticed SSH to my server is quite laggy but if I use the command line with Screen Sharing it is responsive. Same with SFTP,

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

On 26 Jul 2014, at 01:42, McKinnon Chris crmckin...@shaw.ca wrote: I’ve done some testing with swaks trying to track my performance issue. I don’t think this is a postfix issue. It is just the most apparent symptom. I’ve also noticed SSH to my server is quite laggy but if I use the

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

On 24 Jul 2014, at 06:37, McKinnon Chris crmckin...@shaw.ca wrote: I checked for “connect from unknown” errors coming from the client IPs in mail.log and I’m not seeing any. The only warning I see for one client is: Jul 23 19:21:54 ravenviewhomes.com postfix/smtpd[61133]: warning:

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

Hi Wietse, Concerning #1, I checked the “mail.log” and I’m seeing the following warnings (many times): postfix/smtpd[71979]: warning: hostname static.vdc.vn does not resolve to address 113.160.154.177 postfix/smtpd[72386]: warning: hostname bamovil-181-135-42-61.une.net.co does not resolve to

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

McKinnon Chris: Hi Wietse, Concerning #1, I checked the mail.log and I'm seeing the following warnings (many times): postfix/smtpd[71979]: warning: hostname static.vdc.vn does not resolve to address 113.160.154.177 postfix/smtpd[72386]: warning: hostname bamovil-181-135-42-61.une.net.co

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

I checked for “connect from unknown” errors coming from the client IPs in mail.log and I’m not seeing any. The only warning I see for one client is: Jul 23 19:21:54 ravenviewhomes.com postfix/smtpd[61133]: warning: fqdn_hidden[ip_hidden]: SASL PLAIN authentication failed: Jul 23 19:22:39

Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

Hi, I’m experience performance issues with a Postfix installation I setup on a Mac OS X server. Originally it was OS 10.7.4 and Postfix 2.9.4, which worked very well. I was using a relatively stock Postfix configuration with a MySQL backend. There are only 2 serious users on the mail server

Re: Postfix Performance on Mac OS X

McKinnon Chris: Hi, I'm experience performance issues with a Postfix installation I setup on a Mac OS X server. Originally it was OS 10.7.4 and Postfix 2.9.4, which worked very well. I was using a relatively stock Simple questions: (1) Have you looked at the system logfile for Postfix

Re: postfix performance

Jeroen van Aart put forth on 3/23/2011 5:06 PM: I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one hour, to different recipients of course. How are you injecting the 30k emails into Postfix? Mailing list manager or other means? Via SMTP or the local sendmail command? --

Re: postfix performance

Steve Jenkins put forth on 3/23/2011 7:22 PM: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote: IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns server; the difference in the lookup

Re: postfix performance

I installed both pdns-recursor and unbound (running without any zone data) on a test box and got very similar performance results from both. We happened to go with unbound, but based on your recommendation, maybe I'll give pdns-recursor another look (it's still running on our test box). We

Re: postfix performance

Le 25/03/2011 15:55, Steve Jenkins a écrit : On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote: You simply need a caching resolver on an MX/outbound, not a zone server. A zone server is useless in this case. Yep - I know that now. :) I use PowerDNS Recursor on

Re: postfix performance

* Jeroen van Aart jer...@mompl.net: I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning guides. This would only happen once a week or so.

Re: postfix performance

Zitat von Steve Jenkins stevejenk...@gmail.com: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote: IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns server; the difference in the lookup

Re: postfix performance

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:28:21AM +0100, lst_ho...@kwsoft.de wrote: Thx, Joe. Any advantage IYNSHO to running a full blown bind server as opposed to something simpler like dnsmasq or nsd (or anything else you're recommend)? Most of the time simple caching resolvers are faster at corner

Re: postfix performance

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote: A LAN DNS server with a 2ms lookup delay is fine. Unbound, bind, ... does not matter. Thanks for all the nudges in the right direction. We're now running Unbound on the same box as Postfix, getting cached

Re: postfix performance

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 09:41:25AM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote: A LAN DNS server with a 2ms lookup delay is fine. Unbound, bind, ... does not matter. Thanks for all the nudges in the right direction.

Re: postfix performance

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote: If all you changed was adding a local DNS cache, unless your previous cache was 100ms away, you'll not see much change. Actually, after doing some tests with dig on our colo provider's DNS servers we

Re: postfix performance

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 12:07:06PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote: If all you changed was adding a local DNS cache, unless your previous cache was 100ms away, you'll not see much change. Actually,

postfix performance

I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning guides. This would only happen once a week or so. The important part is the need to

Re: postfix performance

On 03/23/2011 03:06 PM, Jeroen van Aart wrote: I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning guides. This would only happen once a

Re: postfix performance

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:06:04PM -0700, Jeroen van Aart wrote: I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning guides. This

Re: postfix performance

Am 23.03.2011 23:06, schrieb Jeroen van Aart: I am curious if postfix would be able to send out 30 emails in one hour, to different recipients of course. Taking into account http://www.postfix.org/TUNING_README.html and other such performance tuning guides. This would only happen once a

Re: postfix performance

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:19:24PM +0100, Matthias Andree wrote: Consider server-class SLC SSD if needed No need. Perfectly ordinary drives with a battery RAID controller will do just fine. If the messages are 10kB or less, 100/sec gives 1MB/s which is also not a problem for typical server

Re: postfix performance

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote: All of this is overkill, but a local DNS resolver is a requirement. With high volume outbound mail, any advantage to having a local DNS resolver on the same machine as Postfix? We've got one that's provided

Re: postfix performance

On 03/23/2011 04:49 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com wrote: All of this is overkill, but a local DNS resolver is a requirement. With high volume outbound mail, any advantage to having a local DNS resolver on the same

Re: postfix performance

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote: IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns server; the difference in the lookup times has a big impact when you're sending

Re: postfix performance

On 03/23/2011 05:22 PM, Steve Jenkins wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joej...@tmsusa.com wrote: IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns server; the difference in the lookup times

Re: postfix performance

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 05:22:49PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Joe j...@tmsusa.com wrote: IMNSHO it's standard practice to run a dns server on the MX host. If you don't want a full blown bind server, at least run some sort of caching dns server; the

Re: postfix performance

Victor Duchovni wrote: - The destination networks are not throttling your output or severely limiting your concurrency. A lot depends on where the mail is going and the concurrency limits and delivery latencies of those destinations. Thanks all for some helpful information. I see

Re: postfix performance

Jeroen van Aart: Victor Duchovni wrote: - The destination networks are not throttling your output or severely limiting your concurrency. A lot depends on where the mail is going and the concurrency limits and delivery latencies of those destinations. Thanks all for some

Re: Postfix performance issue

i test the command today, and found out that it only takes 1.5 secs, nothing change from the 5 secs result. I add the 192.168.1.10 to my /etc/hosts file, and it drop to 0.5 secs to inject 100 msgs. 1. Question here, if the sender IP is not in my /etc/hosts, will postfix do a reverse lookup on the

Re: Postfix performance issue

Teh Kim Chooi: i test the command today, and found out that it only takes 1.5 secs, nothing change from the 5 secs result. I add the 192.168.1.10 to my /etc/hosts file, and it drop to 0.5 secs to inject 100 msgs. No surprise. 1. Question here, if the sender IP is not in my /etc/hosts, will

Postfix performance issue

Hi guys, i recently just setup a high volume postfix server, still in testing mode before the server go for live, OS rhel 5.5 and postfix version 2.3.3 server with 1 quad core, 8gb ram OS on mirror disk, /var/spool/postfix in 1+0 6 disks, all is SAS 15k disk. my postfix configuration file will

Re: Postfix performance issue

On 05/31/2010 08:50 PM, Teh Kim Chooi wrote: Hi guys, i recently just setup a high volume postfix server, still in testing mode before the server go for live, OS rhel 5.5 and postfix version 2.3.3 server with 1 quad core, 8gb ram OS on mirror disk, /var/spool/postfix in 1+0 6 disks, all is

Re: Postfix performance issue

Teh Kim Chooi: [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ] Hi guys, i recently just setup a high volume postfix server, still in testing mode before the server go for live, OS rhel 5.5 and postfix version 2.3.3 Which is no longer maintained. The last release was postfix-2.3.19 in

Re: Postfix performance issue

It sounds weird to me, the 192.168.1.10 is on server eth0 network interface, and it will be on my local etc host file, will postfix still do NSlookup ? since i try inject 100 msgs, there is not time out 5 secs then only start injecting for the 100 msgs, the 5 secs is the time for 100 msgs to

Re: Postfix performance issue

Teh Kim Chooi: It sounds weird to me, the 192.168.1.10 is on server eth0 network interface, and it will be on my local etc host file, will postfix still do NSlookup ? The Postfix SMTP server looks up the client hostname with the getnameinfo() system library routine. I have attached a test

Re: postfix performance

server locally? --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Barney Desmond barneydesm...@gmail.com wrote: From: Barney Desmond barneydesm...@gmail.com Subject: Re: postfix performance To: postfix-users@postfix.org Date: Monday, August 17, 2009, 3:49 PM 2009/8/18 Evan Platt e...@espphotography.com

Re: postfix performance

I spoke too soon Mark Johnson wrote: hopcount_limit = 500 This seems a bit unreasonable due to this exists to stop mail loops and overload. The default of 50 works in many, many situations. maximal_queue_lifetime = 5h Why so short? This can generate many, many bounces due to

postfix performance

All, What do I need to do in order to have better performance on Postfix. I have Centos5 with postfix installed. The mail server is only as a relay mail server and has nothing else. I just make the test and the performance was not good. Outgoing 1K email was around 568 seconds. Any insight is

Re: postfix performance

At 10:30 AM 8/17/2009, you wrote: All, What do I need to do in order to have better performance on Postfix. I have Centos5 with postfix installed. The mail server is only as a relay mail server and has nothing else. I just make the test and the performance was not good. Outgoing 1K email

Re: postfix performance

2009/8/18 Evan Platt e...@espphotography.com: At 10:30 AM 8/17/2009, you wrote: I just make the test and the performance was not good. Outgoing 1K email was around 568 seconds. Any insight is appreciated. Although this will likely be out of my area of being able to help you, someone else

Re: How disk I/O affect postfix performance ?

the disk I/O affect the postfix performance? By speed (bytes per second) or activities (# of read/write per second)? I have shocking information for you: it is none of the above. Postfix must write the message to stable storage, so that it will not be lost after a system crash. For example

Re: How disk I/O affect postfix performance ?

Hi Wietse, Thanks for the quick answer. Can I say that the postfix performance is affected by small file read/write speed of the disk? Anyway, I have another related question. We have an after-queue content filter written in Perl. The email is fed to the filter using pipe as suggested

Re: How disk I/O affect postfix performance ?

Yu (Irvin) Fan: Hi Wietse, Thanks for the quick answer. Can I say that the postfix performance is affected by small file read/write speed of the disk? Many email messages small. Therefore performance is dominated by rotational and seek latencies (absent a large persistent buffer between

How disk I/O affect postfix performance ?

Hi, We're building a box to run two postfix instances to receive and send high volume of emails. According to the documentation it's better to run the two instances on separate disks for performance reason. I'm trying to understand how exactly does the disk I/O affect the postfix performance