On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 07:58:20AM -0400, Dave Sill wrote:
> No, I'm not wrong. If you're going to "correct" someone, please check
> your facts first.

oh .. well ...
Here is your previous post:

> He apparently confused incoming concurrency with outgoing
> concurrency.

What are you trying to say in this regard?

> Perhaps you're thinking of  default_destination_concurrency_limit?
> That's the *per destination* limit, not the overall concurrency limit.

Yes. And seems to me that you pretend to that this would not give any
impact to the measurements...

> Either you're wrong or the documentation on the web is wrong. I don't
> care enough to determine which is the case. Here is what the web docs
> say:

No. The docs is minimum, but it isn't wrong.
If there is no such a limitation in qmail, why should one pretend
to that there is no such a limitation in other MTA (postfix) too?

Once again, if you would like to see the comparisson numbers that
author gives to us, just see at the linear equation from each graph.
You would see that postfix beat qmail just for about 1 msg/second
rate in 2nd and 3th evaluation (this fact is unsignificant, for me at
least). Anyway, if the number of process_limit is increased, say 120,
with the same condition (environment, machine, etc.), should qmail a
lot faster than postfix because of its great efficiency in resources
using by qmail compares to postfix (yes, I didn't talk about the
whole results, it's about 'internal processing').


P.Y. Adi Prasaja

Reply via email to