> "qmail is a secure, reliable, efficient, simple message transfer agent. It
> is meant as a replacement for the entire sendmail-binmail system on typical
> Internet-connected UNIX hosts", yeah,yeah....but in my feeling, it is not
> so fast at all.(I have use qmail for nearly 1 year!)
>
> And following is the data of my test:
>
> Server MTA OS Time spend(1000 letters)
> Server Hardware Server status
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
> ----------------------
> 202.96.237.177 Qmail1.03 FreeBSD3.3 314 seconds K62
> 350,64MRam 4G IDE little load
> 202.96.210.242 Sendmail8.10 FreeBSD3.2 202 seconds
> PII450*2,1GRam 36G SCSI little load
> 202.101.18.155 Qmail1.03 FreeBSD3.2 555 seconds
> PII450*2,512MRam,36G SCSI heavy load
> 202.101.18.157 Qmail1.03 FreeBSD3.2 404 seconds
> PII450*2,512MRam,36G SCSI No any load
>
> (Average value of 3 tests.)
>
>
Yes but your tests are not accurate as you have used different computers
with different loads. also what is the net connection (if you sent mails
over the net..) if you look at the first test would quite probably
outperform sendmail if it had the same memory/cpu/disk speed, as it managed
todo it taking only 112 seconds longer with a _MUCH_ slower processor and a
_LOT_ less Ram. and IDE Disks.. if you want to send test results and say
'its not so fast at all' try running the tests (both sendmail & qmail on the
same machine, obv at different times ;p) and posting those.. I'd be
intersted to see them..
+--- -----+
| Stuart Harris - UNIX Systems Administrator ------------- |
| REDNET Networking & Internet Ltd ----------------------- |
| (t) + 44 (0)1494 751882 (e) stuart(@)red.net ----------- |
| (p) 19E4 12AD 8CD4 BA62 6FA3 9524 7595 0361 B933 E1F8 - |
+--- -----+
