Dave Bigham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I am looking for information on the resource requirements for various list
>managers. I am interested in what is needed for a fairly high volume list
>server in terms of hardware and operating system. What I would really like
>is to see comparisons of through-put, machine cycles, disk requirements and
>general operating schemes for the software itself.
I don't think anyone's done a good, quantitative comparison of list
servers. It would be a lot of work, and the market for that
information is pretty small. Heck, I've never seen a good comparison
of MTA's--which would be about the same size job, but with a much
larger market.
>I would really like to see things along the lines of ...
I would really like somebody to give me a few thousand dollars. That's
the price range for the kind of information you're looking for.
>... "X" list server can
>process "Y" number of 8K messages per hour using "Z" percent of the
>available machine cycles on a 300MHZ machine. It needs "A" megabytes of
>disk space to do this and requires "B" megabytes of main memory. This,
>rather than "M" list server really flys on a 300MHZ machine!
Good luck finding those numbers. However, for most list servers,
delivery performance and resource utilization is dominated by the
performance and resource utilization of the MTA used to send the
messages. I.e., the MTA selection is more important than the list
server selection. Fast MTA's include: qmail, Postfix (beta), exim,
and LSMTP ($).
-Dave
