Jeremy Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hmm, but qmail does get bogged down by deferrals from my experience.
Not like sendmail does, though. qmail's quadratic backoff on retries
helps, as do its overall higher efficiency and its table of
nonresponding hosts (see "man qmail-tcpto").
>I can't really see how it cannot, through just the fact that it has
>to log future deferred attempts, etc.
Logging with multilog is very cheap.
>If you have a very large amount of mail that's constantly getting new
>messages for outgoing, those deferred messages when retried take up a
>qmail-remote process that could be dedicated to an actual deliverable mail
>instead of retrying something that was deferred and may get deferred again.
>I'd like slow mail, deferred or whatever on a host that's dedicated to
>retrying and not getting new mail.
If you've got a spare host, why not split the load? What's the
advantage of shuffling deferred messages from one server to another?
That's a pretty expensive operation, even for qmail.
>Even when new mail stops, qmail sits
>there and tries to deliver deferred mail until queuelifetime is
>exceeded. Why not have a host dedicated to those types of mails instead
>of bogging down your main mail machine.
Most folks don't find deferred messages such a burden. They use up a
few qmail-remote's and some space in the queue, but that's no big
deal. Have you bumped up concurrencyremote to account for deferalls?
>In my case it seems lke it would be useful. I'm delivering 1 - 2 million
>messages a day and a large percentage of that gets deferred.
``Profile. Don't speculate.''
What percentage of messages are deffered? How many attempts, on
average, does it take to deliver them? How much burden would be
shifted by delivering them to a fallback host after the first
deferral? Would a fallback host configuration be more
efficient/faster/more effective than a dual-host configuration?
-Dave
