So there isn't really a consensus on if Apache::Qpsmtpd or forkserver is faster. I'm willing to conduct some benchmarking before we start migrating our system - what are people interested in seeing?
-Max On 4/3/06, Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2006, at 2:11 AM, John Wang wrote: > > >> It's about 3 times faster than the qpsmtpd-forkserver that > >> ships with qpsmtpd. > > > > Has anything significant changed with Apache::Qpsmtpd or forkserver > > since > > then? Was that test valid? According to Matt's 15 Sep 2005 O'Reilly > > article, > > qpsmtpd is being used to handle > 2m emails / day on apache.org. > > How do > > apache.org, perl.org, cpan.org, lists.mysql.com and other large > > scale users > > deploy qpsmtpd? Can we get some more numbers for the wiki? > > apache.org uses Apache::Qpsmtpd. At (perl|cpan).org we use > forkserver (embarrassingly running a variant of 0.28). > > I am not sure there's a significant performance difference between > driving qpsmtpd with forkserver or with apache. Also keep in mind > that if a lot of your mails make it to spamassassin or virus > scanning, then those processes will quickly use many more resources > than qpsmtpd can. > > At perl.org we actually have a separate box (most of our hardware is > pretty dated) to run spamassassin. > > > - ask > > -- > http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/ > > > -- Max Clark http://www.clarksys.com
