Bernd Fondermann-2 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 18:00, jimmy35 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This depends on so many things, for example your DB if you not use
> file based storage.
> This is too hard to tell remotely. Try to understand where the
> bottlenecks are in your particular setup, if its OS, RAM, disk access,
> SQL, CPU, etc. etc.
> Postage just gives you reproduceable load on your machine. It's now up
> to you to interpret all the information you get from Postage and other
> tools (like system resource monitors) to come up with a optimization
> strategy.
>
>
Rather than continue with Postage, which I have relatively no experience
with, I switched to SilkPerformer and created an SMTP script to send my
emails over an even distribution of the inboxes I had created on James.
Glad to report that our latest test run processed 8,336 emails/min, used
minimal RAM and only used 15-19% of the server CPU. An excellent jump from
where we were with Postage. I'll post any further tuning findings I may
have. Thank you for the assistance.
- Cory
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Postage-problems-and-questions-tp5544120p20301716.html
Sent from the James - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
