> Just out of curiosity: is there an obvious reason that I'm missing that
> a custom app would send out mail faster than qmail?
This is an experment, I don't know what effect it will have. My
understanding is that currently:
1) My Program fork/execs qmail-inject and sends it the letter over a
pipe
2) qmail-inject fork/execs qmail-queue and sends it the letter over a
pipe
3) qmail-queue writes the letter to disk
4) qmail-send sees the message on disk and sends a command to the
running qmail-rspawn.
5) qmail-rspawn fork/execs qmail-remote and reads the letter from disk
and sends the it over a pipe
6) qmail-remote sends the message
I have no doubt that qmail is very robust because of this mechanism and I
fully intend on relying on it to handle anything that fails my first
attempt.
> Perhaps something else is the bottleneck. What kind of
> hardware/connection/filesystem are you running? Have you applied all
> the high-volume patches?
Currently I get around 50 K emails per hour on a PIII 650 with 512MB ram and
dual IDE hard disks (one dedicated to qmail) running RedHat Linux 6.2.
I have applied the patch to allow more that 250 remotes (I currently run 400
remotes). I have applied the "Big Todo" patch and compiled with conf-split
set to 251.
Are there other high volume patches?
At this point we are running 6 outbound qmail servers and they can pretty
much saturate our 10Mbit pipe (minus about 30% for other traffic). Right
now we are looking to expanding the pipe and I want to see if I can up the
capacity without adding more boxes.
> You must not have the manpages installed on your system. I can send
> them to you if you like...
I found the man pages but they were fairly specific to individual function
and I need an overview. Actually I found a chapter in the ORielly "DNS and
Bind" book that should help.
