>From [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: David Doucette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Mark Lim wrote:
> > However, performance is an issue. The evaluator can only get James to
> > deliver 5 msgs/sec on 4 processor E450. (vs. 50+ mps for commercial MTAs)
> > He believes James is I/O bound.
>
> How big was the average size of the messages?
How many msgs/sec have you seen with James for a given size message?
> > Have users had to do any tuning of James once installed?
>
> Yes. It is the number of the spool manager; basically, the more the
> better.
> James is multi-threaded mail server; meaning: every SMTP connection will
> be served by a spool manager thread. Having many TCP connections at once
> means that the receiving/sending of the email is done concurently.
Have you found a good number to set this at? 300? 1000? I'm sure it
depends on the type of system, etc.
> > Are there common
> > pitfalls to avoid that could affect performance?
>
> Have the mail spool stored in the filesystem. It would be generally
> faster than if the spool is on a database. But that could be done if you
> are not interested in manually removing the messages that are already in
> the spool. Removing the in-the-spool-messages would mean ever-growing
> log files, which would eventually fill up your harddisk.
Could you clarify this a bit more? I'm not sure I understand about the
removal of messages in the spool and the log files issue.
> I use a database for the mail store, because it would be easier to
> delete some unwanted messages, be it on the mailbox or in the spool. The
> only catch is the size of the attachment; I use MySQL and its driver
> couldn't deliver more than 1 MB (which might be good -- database wise).
When you say it couldn't deliver more than 1MB, what do you mean? Do
you mean you couldn't store more than 1MB in a single column in the
database? Does this mean that James doesn't store the attachments in
the file system when storing messages in the database?
> If you wanted to attach some big files (~10MB and up) on your messages,
> then database storage wouldn't be your option. (Well, if you have very
> large attachments, then email servers wouldn't be your option; the
> option would be ftp, IMO.)
*grins* I agree! Or just send links to a web server file!
Thanks for the information. It is valuable to new users.
David
>
> Oki
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
