Danny,
> Peter, I've got two sets of results, one from James before I applied your > patch, the other after it all other factors remian the same, thats the > only comparison I'm making. > > in previous tests I consistently ran 10,000 1k mails through the spooler > at slightly over 14 mails per second. (using a single connection per 100 > mails) Ok. I understand your comparison. And that's one of the reasons I asked what your thread pool maximum was. Because I've got a different set of results, and you clearly didn't grab all the changes at once (witness the assembly.xml change). So I'm asking you to confirm that you've got a valid thread pool maximum. Obviously the Watchdog approach needs more threads that the other system - it was designed that way and the configuration modified. If it's still at the earlier default of 40, then the Watchdog method won't allow 20 connections. Period. --Peter > > d. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Peter M. Goldstein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Sent: 13 October 2002 19:37 > > To: 'James Developers List' > > Subject: RE: Peters patch doesn't actually work... > > > > > > > > Danny, > > > > > sorry, thats the wrong way round its assmebly.xml that needs twiddled. > > > > > > However, applying the same SMTP test, this time 2000 1k mails from 20 > > > threads, Peter's changes resulted in more refused connections, 1st > > after > > > only 16 connections have been attempted and with no more at all after > > 361 > > > mails have been delivered. > > > > > > I haven't looked at the code really, but my empirical view is that > > SMTP > > > suffers from these changes. > > > > I've been running these tests all night with a slightly tweaked version > > of the patch I submitted (there was an erroneous notify() call in that > > patch). It runs fine under load, although there do seem to be some > > problems with the spooler if its put under consistent load. It's not > > clear what the relationship is to the handler changes. We've never > > driven the spooler under serious load, so we have no idea what load it > > can take. I'm looking into this. > > > > Might I suggest that you check your configuration. My first guess would > > be that you didn't correctly bump up the maximum number of threads in > > your server's thread pool. The specified number of 40 would be too low > > for your test, since 20 connections would consume 40 threads alone, not > > to mention that all the other blocks use at least one thread apiece. > > > > --Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
