On Sun, Jul 23, 2000 at 09:08:07AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As I've just posted, to my mind that just makes the results conservatively
> trend against qmail. I think that's probably the right direction for now
> in the absence of actual measurements, which if course would be best.
I have written a benchmark that iterates over message sizes from 1000 to
64000 bytes, and from 1 to 16 recipients, and times how long it takes to
send the same message to all the recipients using qmail-remote. It
calls qmail-remote once with all the recipients (multi-RCPT), and once
for each recipient (multi-connection). I only have preliminary results
so far, and I plan to run a more complete set of tests tonight after I
leave work. I'll post my full results and scripts once I've completed
the tests.
> > I'd be willing to do this, I'm somewhat curious myself.
> Sure, I'd love to see your numbers.
OK, for my complete logs, which at the moment span roughly 5 days, this
shows a potential 23% bandwidth savings. zoverall indicates a maximum
overhead of 35%. From the last full day's logs, though, the savings is
only 6%, with zoverall showing a maximum overhead of 17%.
I discovered on Friday that with a recent expansion, our previous limit
of 10MB was being blown by in just 2-3 days, so I just expanded that
limit to 100MB. I also stopped a monitoring process that was producing
3 small (281 byte) emails a minute that were skewing the numbers
significantly. Once that fills up, I should have more representative
statistics to report.
--
Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
