On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:00:38PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
[snip]
Yes I did. I don't answer to lame Questions because I can figure this
Point out my own, sorry.
No you can't. You're way too stupid for it.
You don't deserve any help from us.
Greetz, Peter [please do not reply/follow-up]
Setup is Solaris 7 and qmail + big todo + big concurrency
What's going wrong here ?
Thanks for Answer!
2001-02-02 18:31:10.045668500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
2001-02-02 18:31:10.626628500 status: local 0/250 remote 5/400
2001-02-02 18:31:10.988526500 status: local 0/250 remote 6/400
Michael Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Setup is Solaris 7 and qmail + big todo + big concurrency
What's going wrong here ?
Thanks for Answer!
You asked this yesterday. Do you think the answer is different today?
In my responses to you yesterday, I *twice* asked if you'd tried
turning off
Dave Sill wrote:
You asked this yesterday. Do you think the answer is different today?
Yes, may depend on You!
In my responses to you yesterday, I *twice* asked if you'd tried
turning off qmail-send during the injection of your mass of
messages. You never answered that question.
Yes I
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:00:38PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
# What in my Situation is exactly.
# The Messages are out of the todo queue. They should be sent out. But that
# is too slow because
# there are just so few qmail-remote Processes!!! They don't come up like
# on Linux.
# Just about
Michael Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What in my Situation is exactly. The Messages are out of the todo queue.
They should be sent out. But that is too slow because there are just so few
qmail-remote Processes!!!
[...]
Because the queue Directory is overloaded there are too many fsyncs.
On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 08:00:38PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
You asked this yesterday. Do you think the answer is different today?
Yes, may depend on You!
In my responses to you yesterday, I *twice* asked if you'd tried
turning off qmail-send during the injection
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/12/msg00465.html
This here exactly describes the Situation!
--
Michael..
I heard that the 15k rpm drives from Seagate have a difficult time under
some RAID cards?
Is this still true?
Joe
- Original Message -
From: "Charles Cazabon" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2001 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: qmail speed solaris
Michael Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1999/12/msg00465.html
This here exactly describes the Situation!
Please stop yelling!
OK, so now the question is where the new messages to be processed are
coming from. If they're bounces or other
Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to
send out 500.000 e-Mails for Testing.
I setup a Remote Concurrency of 400 and have queue Directory Split + Big
Todo Server Patches.
Why are there just average of 4 concurrent qmail-remote Processes ?
How to improve it ?
--
Michael Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to send out
500.000 e-Mails for Testing. I setup a Remote Concurrency of 400 and have
queue Directory Split + Big Todo Server Patches. Why are there just average
of 4 concurrent
Sorry, I'm using multilog for logging.
And here is a Cut from Logs...
--
2001-02-01 16:07:00.591559500 status: local 0/250 remote 4/400
2001-02-01 16:07:01.136160500 new msg 709520
2001-02-01 16:07:01.176806500 info msg 709520: bytes 5581 from
[EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 25704 uid 101
2001-02-01
How? 500,000 separate messages or one message with 500,000 recipients?
If the former, have you tried stopping qmail-send until the messages
are injected--and do you really need to send each recipient a
different message?
They are seperate messages and Yes it's needed because those are
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
# mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
#
# Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
the correct response would be 'African or European?'
--
Justin Bell
Michael Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to
send out 500.000 e-Mails for Testing.
How? 500,000 separate messages or one message with 500,000 recipients?
If the former, have you tried stopping qmail-send until the messages
are
Michael Maier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How? 500,000 separate messages or one message with 500,000 recipients?
If the former, have you tried stopping qmail-send until the messages
are injected--and do you really need to send each recipient a
different message?
They are seperate messages and
Justin Bell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
# mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
#
# Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
the correct response would be 'African or European?'
--
Justin Bell
If you are Monty Python, yes! :-)
--
Michael..
Dave Sill wrote:
OK, no need to get excited. So, have you tried stopping qmail-send
until the messages are injected?
I think you're seeing the combination of two problems: the first is
disk bandwidth on the queue partition, and the second is the
single-threaded nature of qmail-send: it
Steve Kennedy wrote:
what's your favourite colour ?
Steve
Blue! Uhmm... No Yellow! ;-)
--
--^..^--
michael maier - system development administrator
flatfox ag, hanauer landstrasse 196a
d-60314 frankfurt am main
fon+49.(0)69.50 95
'
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Maier" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 3:33 PM
Subject: qmail speed improvement
Hi, I'm running qmail on Solaris 7 (SUN Netra T1) and I am trying to
send out 500.000 e-Mails for Testing.
I setu
* Steve Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 06:03:37PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
Justin Bell wrote:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 05:12:36PM +0100, Michael Maier wrote:
mean airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?
Dunno, gonna search on Google! :-)
the correct response
for the quality of my flame.
- Original Message -
From: "Robin S. Socha" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: qmail speed improvement
* Steve Kennedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 06:03:37PM +0100, Mic
Hi,
I've been running Qmail now for a couple of years without incident and
without any real problems. But I was wondering what makes Qmail faster than
most mailers. Can someone enlighten me on the various reasons. Thanks in
advance.
Erik
"Erik Howard" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been running Qmail now for a couple of years without incident and
without any real problems. But I was wondering what makes Qmail faster than
most mailers. Can someone enlighten me on the various reasons. Thanks in
advance.
That's a good question.
Marc Slemko writes:
You put a limit of x connections in. One remote system uses all or
nearly all of them. No one else can connect.
Wrong again. New connections continue to be accepted and added to the
kernel's (large) table of TCBs. Each of the old connections receives a
message from the
On Wed 1999-04-14 (12:18), Silver CHEN wrote:
Dear Keith:
I think you got my point, thanks.
My experience on sendmail at this tpoic *is* quite good - sorry, I don't
have such experience on qmail yet.
My intuition tells me that the first way will be better, since it will send
I'm replying to several messages here (see References), but I'm not
going to bother attributing each quote.
qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail
Dear Sir:
I'm the one that causes 'a lot' discussion about the topic 'qmail speed'.
I've read through the whole mail-threads, and thanks for anyone that
give even a word here.
I HAVE to say that I like qmail, and I don't hate sendmail too -
that's not my point here. If anything
Silver CHEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone said that qmail is weaker if I send many 'RCPT TO:' in one SMTP
transactions than sendmail. Well, I don't know the inside story, but I
do worry about that statement.
Don't worry. There are very rare situations in which sendmail can be
faster
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
Sendmail only wins when the message is huge.
At 08:42 AM Tuesday 4/13/99, Marc Slemko wrote:
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 11:27:15AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
Silver CHEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Someone said that qmail is weaker if I send many 'RCPT TO:' in one SMTP
transactions than sendmail. Well, I don't know the inside story, but I
do worry about that statement.
Don't worry.
Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...Please give me an example of how to set it up so that a
remote site can open as many connections as it wants (which you think it
should be able to do) without monopolizing the system.
I don't care if a remote site uses all available SMTP connections if:
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
...with sendmail, one process delivers to all
recipients, and only one connection is ever open to a remote
site. ...
Hmm very untrue in fact. Sendmail will under several circumstances
[none of which I will explain here but some of
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 01:23:17PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave Sill wrote:
...with sendmail, one process delivers to all
recipients, and only one connection is ever open to a remote
site. ...
Hmm very untrue in fact. Sendmail will under
Keith Burdis wrote/schrieb/scribsit:
Remember that we're talking about sending one message to a large number of
addresses on the same remote host. In general qmail is faster, but I think in
this case any MTA that does multiple rcpt to's will be quicker.
AFAIK, sendmail has a limit of "RCPT
Keith Burdis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 13 April 1999 at 21:39:09 +
What I had in mind was that with sendmail you can do:
HELO
MAIL FROM
RCPT TO: address-1
RCPT TO: address-2
RCPT TO: address-n
DATA
...
whereas with qmail, since
I think you should get information on latency for message from a machine
running a large distribution lst to see where it's spending its time
probably waiting for those slug domains which have either
* slow links
* slow dns
* are no longer in services
but, that is
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
Remember that we're talking about sending one message to a large number of
addresses on the same remote host. In general qmail is faster, but I think in
this case any MTA that does multiple rcpt to's will be quicker.
if the effect latency of the
What I had in mind was that with sendmail you can do:
HELO
MAIL FROM
RCPT TO: address-1
RCPT TO: address-2
RCPT TO: address-n
DATA
...
whereas with qmail, since it doesn't do multiple rcpts, you'd have to do:
for i = 1 to n
HELO
Hi Dirk et al,
Hmm, after reading this thread, I see that I have a thought on
how to help with this that doesn't seem to exactly be stated
here... (though some similar things have been)
I venture this suggestion with some trepidation, being that a)
I'm a newbie to qmail, and b) I'm a newbie to
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:38 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Lorens Kockum wrote:
qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it
Incorrect. qmail-inject is *the* program that does look at headers. How did
you deduce the above after reading the man page for qmail-inject?
Obviously,
the topic 'qmail speed'. Now I'm
wonder that if qmail can do this too? If the design spirit of qmail
can't afford such high-loading task in short time, then sendmail
takes the chance back.
qmail was designed for higher performance than sendmail. The "qmail
speed" thread was about a particular ty
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 11:55:17AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
Hotmail, last time I checked, used qmail for outgoing mail, zmailer
for incoming mail. If it's slow and unreliable, it's not because it
uses qmail, it's because it's too busy or poorly run. If sendmail
would have been better than
Peter van Dijk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The 'qmail for outgoing' claim is correct. The 'zmailer for incoming'
claim is very ridiculous.
See:
http://www.ornl.gov/its/archives/mailing-lists/qmail/1997/08/msg01208.html
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
Silver CHEN [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The mail reason that I can't switch to qmail is that I'm NOT
familiar with qmail in early days, so I chose sendmail.
You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
revert to sendmail
Samuel Dries-Daffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
You can install qmail without removing/breaking sendmail, so you can
revert to sendmail easily.
On our server (SGI Indy -- IRIX 6.5) this was mostly true, with one
exception-- BSD mail users.
We had a
/var/qmail/bin/sendmail ?
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Dries-Daffner [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 12:19 PM
To: Dave Sill
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: [Q] qmail speed "again"
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave
4 e-mail addresses would make for some small problems ...
have to split it up somewhat, I'd say.
Incorrect. This is precisely how a "serious mailing-list" does it. Namely
ezmlm. Admittedly via qmail-queue, but the queue insertion costs and
sequences are the same.
I didn't go to the bottom
Umm.. Why didn't you use /var/qmail/bin/sendmail ?
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Dries-Daffner [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 12, 1999 12:19 PM
To: Dave Sill
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Q] qmail speed "again"
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999,
On Mon 1999-04-12 (11:41), Dave Sill wrote:
"Fred Lindberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
Sendmail
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
"Fred Lindberg" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qmail will always be faster than sendmail [unless you send one message
to a large number of addresses on the same remote host].
No, qmail will usually win here, too, because sendmail serializes.
Sendmail only
Only if they are silly enough to accept more connections than they can
handle. :) One of the things a sys admin is "supposed" to do is tune his
machines for performance. If you cannot limit the number of connections
you will accept to something your system can handle, you need to re-think
your
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
mailers.
Well, the obvious question is why do mailers accept connections that they
cannot handle? If the remote host accepts the mail it should be prepared to
deal with it.
Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 12 April 1999 at 13:13:51 -0700
qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
mailers.
Well, the other side knows about its capability to accept additional
connections. We don't. Basic self-protection, from both enthusiastic
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
Only if they are silly enough to accept more connections than they can
handle. :) One of the things a sys admin is "supposed" to do is tune his
machines for performance. If you cannot limit the number of connections
you will accept to something
Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 12 April 1999 at 13:24:34 -0700
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Keith Burdis wrote:
qmail is great that way at inflicting remote DoS attacks against other
mailers.
Well, the obvious question is why do mailers accept connections that they
cannot
Marc Slemko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, Timothy L. Mayo wrote:
If you cannot limit the number of connections you will accept to
something your system can handle, you need to re-think your setup.
Erm... you just described a classic DoS attack. You put a limit of
x
I think DJB has given a mathematically rigorous proof that "program
which is vulnerable to DoS" is one definition of "server". When a
server is serving all it can, it will refuse to serve any more. QED
this is accurate for a single function server. in a multifunction
server, it would be smart
On Tue, Apr 13, 1999 at 05:35:19PM -0400, Craig I. Hagan wrote:
As for those bulk senders, a relatively painless solution is to randomize the
order of the domains and/or pull out the top 5 and serially send those. Your
tools *do* talk smtp, don't they?
qmail-remote will handle multiple RCPT
Timothy L Mayo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Neither Keith nor I are talking about the mailer. If the remote MACHINE
cannot handle the load, it should be set up to reject the excess
connections. This is true no matter WHAT MTA is running on the remote
system.
This is great in theory. In
On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 10:49:22PM -0600, Bruce Guenter wrote:
On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
to put all the recipients in.
That's what xargs is for.
--
The 5 year plan:
In five
On Mon, Apr 12, 1999 at 01:04:50AM -0400, Peter C. Norton wrote:
On the other hand, if your recipients list is larger than can fit on a
single command line, it would be better to go the Bcc header field route
to put all the recipients in.
That's what xargs is for.
Unless you want to have
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
qmail-inject does not look at headers, does it, so
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lorens Kockum):
| On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
| Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
|
| Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
|
On Fri, 9 Apr 1999, Dave Sill wrote:
A short-term, special purpose fix for "customized spam" applications
would be a high-speed queuer that does the queuing and preprocessing
of qmail-queue and qmail-send. E.g.,
1) stop qmail
2) invoke custom queuer which:
a) puts cutomized
At 01:38 PM Sunday 4/11/99, Lorens Kockum wrote:
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
Use qmail-inject with multiple Bcc: recipients as suggested a few days ago.
I've read all the articles about the topic 'qmail speed'. Now I'm
wonder
that if qmail can do this too? If the design spirit of qmail can't
afford
such high-loading task in short time, then sendmail takes the chance
back.
qmail, exim and postfix are all much faster than sendmail and you
At 04:06 PM Thursday 4/8/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Each message is personalized to the recipient. They truly are 230,000
different messages.
That doesn't gel with your original post of:
sed s//$address/g /tmp/message | /var/qmail/bin/qmail-queue 1
/tmp/address
Which means you have
Huh?
A message looks like something like this:
--
To:
...
This message was sent to
--
What the sed below does is replace with the recipient's email
address. So each email is different from the other. It can't be delivered
as one email with multiple recipients.
But
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 03:59:18PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
20K/hour for PPRO200
40K/hour for PII350
Well, you can get 60k/hour using both. Frankly,
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 08:44:06AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 03:59:18PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
20K/hour for PPRO200
+ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Is qmail 2.0 out?
|
| No, but it promises dramtically improved queue performance.
|
| Do we have an ETA?
Nope. Dan is too smart for that. Too many software developers have
been burned by suggesting a delivery date, then finding their release
slip by weeks, months,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I need to find a way of doing 100K/hour. Ideally with one machine. I
vaguely seems to recall that the author of qmail was claiming something
like 100K/hour performance?
I can't find anything like on the web page. The closest claims are:
Efficient: On a Pentium under
Got it.
That's the one problem when mathematicans start to program.
Usually very little attention is being paid to performance
optimizations.
One can actually see that in qmail. Well thought out and
very modular. Lots of performance expensive design decisions though.
If SPAMmers can do 200K
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the one problem when mathematicans start to program.
Usually very little attention is being paid to performance
optimizations.
One can actually see that in qmail. Well thought out and
very modular. Lots of performance expensive design decisions
Things that may improve things is to look at caching/high speed scsi
controllers, such as the DPT 3334UW and the icp-vortex controllers. The
DPT takes up to 64MB/controller and the icp-vortex up to 128MB/controller.
We're using 2 DPT 3334UW's on our news machine (40GB spool) at this time
and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
That's the one problem when mathematicans start to program.
Usually very little attention is being paid to performance
optimizations.
Cough.
I take exception to that! Though I'm no DJB, the PhD after my name
means I can claim to be a mathematician. The performance
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If neither gets over 100K deliveries per hour then I'll have to
write my own "gattling gun" SMTP delivery thingy and just feed
messages to qmail that have problems.
Are you sure you're not a spammer? You're performance needs seem to be
mind-boggling, yet you refuse
Dave Sill writes:
When you're sending messages, how many qmail-remotes are running?
About 90-130. 255 if I stop delivery for a little while and then restart
it. To me that means that the machine can send faster then I can get the
messages into the queue.
That's what it sounds like. So
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can. Just make sure that you send a single email, with a CC list
of size 200K. Then you can get performance comparable to spammers.
Just for the sake of discussion, what would be the best way?
I'm envisioning using xargs to distribute the rcpt
Why is an observation an insult? Its just a pattern that I have
seen a few times. No big deal.
Anyways, my main concern is to get more speed out of this thing.
Computer hardware has reached quite amazing performance levels.
It is time that software catches up.
Dirk
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at
Yes, very sure that I'm not a SPAMmer. Neither is my customer.
Some people just like to get information on certain subjects and sign up
for these newsletters. Problem is that the information is time sensitive
so everybody needs to get it at about the same time. At least on the
same day.
Of
qmail-inject is too slow. I've been using qmail-queue instead.
Dirk
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 05:01:48PM -, Lorens Kockum wrote:
On the qmail list [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can. Just make sure that you send a single email, with a CC list
of size 200K. Then you can get performance
Hi Dirk,
I tried the no_fsync method last night and recorded a 10% speed improvement.
At 07:27 AM 4/9/99 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Apr 09, 1999 at 08:44:06AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
When you're sending messages, how many qmail-remotes are running?
About 90-130. 255 if I stop
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 1999 10:13:43 -0700
Of course the problem could be solved by having 20 boxes do it in
parallel. But where is the fun in that. Also rack space goes for
$1000/rack/month where these boxes live. No need to waste money just
because they could. After
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 9 April 1999 at 08:53:51 -0700
Got it.
That's the one problem when mathematicans start to program.
Usually very little attention is being paid to performance
optimizations.
One can actually see that in qmail. Well thought out and
At 10:19 AM Friday 4/9/99, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
qmail-inject is too slow. I've been using qmail-queue instead.
Only because you're doing an invocation per recipient! I'm guessing, but I'm
almost certain the qmail-qstat will show some interesting numbers.
Particularly "messages in queue but
At 04:27 PM Friday 4/9/99, Sam wrote:
Dave Sill writes:
When you're sending messages, how many qmail-remotes are running?
About 90-130. 255 if I stop delivery for a little while and then restart
it. To me that means that the machine can send faster then I can get the
messages into the
David Villeger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As long as some messages are waiting to be "preprocessed" (see INTERNALS
for explanation), qmail does not achieve 255 simultaneous qmail-remote.
Besides, as you inject the messages into the queue, qmail-send spends a
huge amount of time cleaning up (via
FYI
Removing the fsync calls results in a speedup of 25-40% for us.
Am now getting about 50K/hour on the PPRO200, 128MB RAM and
9GB UW HD. No bad but still quite a ways to go.
Next test will be multiple independent mail-queue's on RAM disks.
Dirk
PS: The faster system (PII 450) is not
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
How's your qmail configured? What does qmail-showctl say?
What kind of connectivity do you have?
Running a local nameserver?
with SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 03:59:18PM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350
Which is it? PPRO200 or PII350?
20K/hour for PPRO200
40K/hour for PII350
How's your qmail configured? What does qmail-showctl say?
Ug. You're invoking qmail-queue for each recipient? Is that necessary?
Most of your system resources are probably spend putting individual messages
into the queue and deleting individual messages as they're delivered.
Try this as an alternative injection script:
(
sed s/^/Bcc: / list
cat
Current speed is 20,000-40,000/hour on a PPRO200/PII350 with
SCSI drives. Anybody know a better/faster way?
yup, you can get about an order of magnitude
speed boost if you are willing to play a little faster
and looser -- however if your machine crashes
there may be some risk in having a
At 04:33 PM 3/9/99 -0500, Craig I. Hagan wrote:
what you can do is remove ALL of the fsync calls
in qmail. This will DRAMATICALLY speed up queue
operations as it allows the OS (e.g. linux/freebsd) to
take full advantage of their filesystem cache. The
risks of doing this should be obvious. OTOH,
At 05:13 PM 4/8/99 -0400, David Villeger wrote:
Then, I did it with qmail-queue: qmail-send did not like it (got something
like "Sorry, message has wrong owner"). I never got to investigate (I
recall the problem was in spawn.c though).
I just tried it again (I thought this was too weird), and it
Each message is personalized to the recipient. They truly are 230,000
different messages. That why it is fed into the queue.
Dirk
On Thu, Apr 08, 1999 at 01:12:58PM -0700, Mark Delany wrote:
Ug. You're invoking qmail-queue for each recipient? Is that necessary?
Most of your system resources
99 matches
Mail list logo
