[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Greg Cope wrote:
Well we are now looking at a totaly scalable solution - where we just
add boxes to scale. Generating the emails is simplistic and quick -
injecting into a queue and then processing the queue is the fun part !
it is much
Bruce Guenter wrote:
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:17:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
When the bandwidth required to send its mail is significantly smaller
than the bandwidth available. That is, if you have to send 100,000 5K
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the
messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we
I'm sure there are lots of valid reasons, for example it might be
a late-breaking news email that ages very rapidly.
On Sat, 29 Jul 2000, Greg Cope wrote:
Well we are now looking at a totaly scalable solution - where we just
add boxes to scale. Generating the emails is simplistic and quick -
injecting into a queue and then processing the queue is the fun part !
it is much better if you try the first
Bruce Guenter wrote:
As promised, I've posted the results of the benchmark testing at
http://em.ca/~bruceg/bench-qmail-remote/
The receiving server is my PC, which has a DSL connection running at
about 1.5Mb downlink bandwidth (the part that was actually used) running
qmail, of
Here goes on some feed back ...
Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well
connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using
multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down
One of my clients is into sending "customized
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Here goes on some feed back ...
Very interesting - you seem to have backed up DJb's claims that a well
connected host using single RCPTS is probably as good as one using
multiple RCPTs. I always thought that Multiple would win hands down
One of my
We are using sendmail - I'm a big qmail fan, use it it lots of places,
but have been reluctant to change a working system. One of the
arguments against was the multiple rcpt-to's that qmail does not
support.
But a customized email can never use multiple recipients. So that can't
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 02:17:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
My question is thus - When does a host become well connected ?
When the bandwidth required to send its mail is significantly smaller
than the bandwidth available. That is, if you have to send 100,000 5K
messages over a 1 hour period,
On Sat, Jul 29, 2000 at 03:30:08PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
Well because of performance issue (Management wanted to send all the
messages out in quite a short time - for reasons as yet unexplained!) we
were considereding bining the customised part.
If you *need* customized email per recipient,
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 01:23:18PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It
calls
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 09:08:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I've just posted, to my mind that just makes the results conservatively
trend against qmail. I think that's probably the right direction for now
in the absence of actual measurements, which if course would be best.
I have
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It
calls qmail-remote once with all the
On Tue, Jul 25, 2000 at 04:04:00PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
send the same message to all the recipients using
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:06:57AM -0700, John White wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o DNS overhead is not counted
I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
there's no
This is what I've asked for too -- and been given "do it yourself".
Best of luck.
Frank Tegtmeyer wrote:
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail.
And I have never seen numbers,
On Mon, Jul 24, 2000 at 11:31:05AM -0400, Michael T. Babcock wrote:
This is what I've asked for too -- and been given "do it yourself".
Almost certainly because:
a) It's hard to arrange a reproducable set of deliveries that
can be run on qmail and sendmail. Even a couple of hours
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've written a little perl script to analyze a qmail log.
Have you looked at qmailanalog? Could it help you if it does not
already do what you want?
This scripts gives a hint as to what you might save in bandwidth
if qmail
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
o DNS overhead is not counted
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail. You'd have to.
--
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than sendmail, Dan counted the DNS traffic due to
sendmail.
And I have never seen numbers, only Dan's claims. It's hard to argue using
them without being backed up by numbers.
Regards, Frank
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 08:14:57AM -0400, Russell Nelson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
o DNS overhead is not counted
In his measurements that indicated that qmail used less bandwidth in
real-life situations than
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o DNS overhead is not counted
I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
there's no difference in the dns traffic between the two
methods?
John
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target
Again, why? I thought the whole argument was to trade speed for
"network good-neighbor"-ness.
John
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:06:57AM -0700, John White wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o DNS overhead is not counted
I'm still not clear why this isn't counted. I mean, it -is-
part of the traffic, is it not? Is it your contention that
there's no
On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 10:08:16AM -0700, John White wrote:
On Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 12:45:57PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
o Aggregation is by FQDN, not MX target
Again, why? I thought the whole argument was to trade speed for
"network good-neighbor"-ness.
Again, laziness. The perl
I've written a little perl script to analyze a qmail log.
This scripts gives a hint as to what you might save in bandwidth
if qmail supported multiple recipients.
This results is indicative at best - here are some caveats:
o only messages sizes as recorded in the log are counted
o SMTP
26 matches
Mail list logo
