Patrick Chemla:
Wietse:
> > OK, so you can turn back on that connection caching. Note that
> > qmail creates and destroys two processes per SMTP session, so
> > reusing a session is also a win from a CPU resource point of view.
Patrick:
> If I do so, will postfix open more than one connexion to ea
Le 11/01/2010 09:27, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/11/2010 1:02 AM:
Le 10/01/2010 23:58, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On a technical level I'm happy you got it working. Just please tell
us you're
not sending mass spam with this setup.
--
Stan
I have to d
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/11/2010 1:02 AM:
> Le 10/01/2010 23:58, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
>> On a technical level I'm happy you got it working. Just please tell
>> us you're
>> not sending mass spam with this setup.
>>
>> --
>> Stan
>>
>
> I have to do it for a customer who send as he sa
Le 11/01/2010 01:13, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
Wietse,
Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
postfix reload
and report if this makes a difference.
Wietse
I have tested this sin
Le 10/01/2010 23:58, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
On a technical level I'm happy you got it working. Just please tell us you're
not sending mass spam with this setup.
--
Stan
I have to do it for a customer who send as he said, only opt-in mass
emails. He has a big blacklisted email database w
Patrick Chemla:
> Wietse,
> >> Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
> >>
> >> postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
> >> postfix reload
> >>
> >> and report if this makes a difference.
> >>Wietse
> >>
> I have tested this since yesterday night.
>
> I got
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/10/2010 3:00 PM:
> Wietse,
>>> Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
>>>
>>> postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
>>> postfix reload
>>>
>>> and report if this makes a difference.
>>> Wietse
>>>
> I have tested this since yes
Wietse,
Please try the following, as asked half a week ago:
postconf -e smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
postfix reload
and report if this makes a difference.
Wietse
I have tested this since yesterday night.
I got some problems with Linux per user number of processes
Wietse Venema:
> Patrick Chemla:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I got these statistics:
> >
> > Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
> > interval Jan 9 19:09:03
> > Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: domain lookup
> > hits=110 miss=89 success=55%
> > Ja
Patrick Chemla:
> Hi all,
>
> I got these statistics:
>
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
> interval Jan 9 19:09:03
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: domain lookup
> hits=110 miss=89 success=55%
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scach
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 1:08 PM:
> You mean 100% success?
Yes.
> Before I set up the postfix relay to load balance between 30 qmail
> servers, each of them was able to accept in his own queue hundreds
> thousands email. Email were sent by campaigns of thousands balanced on 3
> qmail
Le 09/01/2010 20:54, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 12:37 PM:
I wen t there but did not find explanations about miss address lookup or
miss domain lookup.
While I have 122,000 messages in active queue I still don't understand
why statistics show max simultaneou
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 12:37 PM:
> I wen t there but did not find explanations about miss address lookup or
> miss domain lookup.
> While I have 122,000 messages in active queue I still don't understand
> why statistics show max simultaneous domains=1. It should be dozens , or
> hund
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 11:07 AM:
> Hi,
>
> I will try all your advises, but something still very strange for me:
>
> We see that postfix logs show that ehlo process is very slow through
> postfix but very fast by hand. Even I have recorded through
> tcpdump/WireShark and I can see t
Hi Stan,
Thanks for your interest.
Le 09/01/2010 20:21, Stan Hoeppner a écrit :
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 11:17 AM:
Hi all,
I got these statistics:
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
interval Jan 9 19:09:03
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[
Patrick Chemla put forth on 1/9/2010 11:17 AM:
> Hi all,
>
> I got these statistics:
>
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
> interval Jan 9 19:09:03
> Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: domain lookup
> hits=110 miss=89 success=55%
> Jan 9 1
Hi all,
I got these statistics:
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: start
interval Jan 9 19:09:03
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: domain lookup
hits=110 miss=89 success=55%
Jan 9 19:15:21 postfix postfix/scache[18038]: statistics: address
lo
Hi,
I will try all your advises, but something still very strange for me:
We see that postfix logs show that ehlo process is very slow through
postfix but very fast by hand. Even I have recorded through
tcpdump/WireShark and I can see that messages are sent very very very
quickly in about 1 s
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 03:24:25PM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
> When I do telnet a139.localpc2105.com 25, I get immediate response.
What does "response" mean? Immediate connection completion means
nothing. Do you get a 220 banner right away? Do you get all of
it or just the first line in a mul
Wietse Venema:
> Patrick Chemla:
> > Le 08/01/2010 00:43, Victor Duchovni a ?crit :
> > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:30:34AM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/qmgr[26441]: 5B91F873F6: removed
> > >> Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/smtp[27180]: 375DD
On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:24:25 +0200, Patrick Chemla
> When I telnet a70.localpc2105.com 25 I get an immediate response.
I assume you are telnet'ing from the Postfix server with the queue delay
problem. At this point, after you receive the 220, type:
ehlo your.postfix-server.tld
and time the d
Patrick Chemla:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Le 08/01/2010 00:43, Victor Duchovni a ?crit :
> > On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:30:34AM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/qmgr[26441]: 5B91F873F6: removed
> >> Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postf
Le 08/01/2010 00:43, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:30:34AM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/qmgr[26441]: 5B91F873F6: removed
Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/smtp[27180]: 375DDD5923:
to=, relay=a139.localpc2105.com[10.0.0.139]:25,
conn_use=5
Le 08/01/2010 03:03, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
But the CPU of the box is idle more than 80%. It is clear that it is not a
matter of CPU, nor memory, nor disk. Something in the number of
processes/users/simultaneous tasks is blocking.
Indeed, the symptom of blocking i
Patrick Chemla:
> >> But the CPU of the box is idle more than 80%. It is clear that it is not a
> >> matter of CPU, nor memory, nor disk. Something in the number of
> >> processes/users/simultaneous tasks is blocking.
Indeed, the symptom of blocking is in the third field of
the Postfix "delays" lo
On Fri, Jan 08, 2010 at 12:30:34AM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
> Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/qmgr[26441]: 5B91F873F6: removed
> Jan 7 22:02:57 postfix postfix/smtp[27180]: 375DDD5923:
> to=, relay=a139.localpc2105.com[10.0.0.139]:25,
> conn_use=59, delay=61550, delays=17019/44435/96/0.17,
Le 07/01/2010 20:37, Victor Duchovni a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 08:29:44PM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
Here the logs:
This is just the qmgr(8) warnings about a clogged queue. Other than
telling us that all the mail is going to "localpc2105.com", this
is not very useful. Where
Le 07/01/2010 23:47, Stefan Caunter a écrit :
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Patrick Chemla
wrote:
said "I just found that Postfix could send 1 million emails per hour
when I send less than a half million in 24 hours", but I can't make
sense of that, sorry.
I have to inject 2 t
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 10:54:15PM +0100, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > It could be viewed that half a million delivered in 24 hours is fine.
> > Are you signing the mail? This can help with delivery rates to the
> > large webmailer mx destinations.
>
> There are many things to consider:
>
> * DKI
* Stefan Caunter :
> It could be viewed that half a million delivered in 24 hours is fine.
> Are you signing the mail? This can help with delivery rates to the
> large webmailer mx destinations.
There are many things to consider:
* DKIM signing - which is the prerequisite for getting into feedba
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 04:47:14PM -0500, Stefan Caunter wrote:
> >
> > I have to inject 2 to 4 millions emails to the postfix box in 24 hours, and
> > I expect to deliver within the same delay.
> > Actually, I can't deliver more than 500,000 per 24h hours.
>
> It could be viewed that half a mill
On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 1:25 PM, Patrick Chemla
wrote:
>> said "I just found that Postfix could send 1 million emails per hour
>> when I send less than a half million in 24 hours", but I can't make
>> sense of that, sorry.
>>
>
> I have to inject 2 to 4 millions emails to the postfix box in 24 hou
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 08:29:44PM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
> Here the logs:
This is just the qmgr(8) warnings about a clogged queue. Other than
telling us that all the mail is going to "localpc2105.com", this
is not very useful. Where are the logs from smtp(8)?
What transport is "localpc210
On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 07:43:55PM +0200, Patrick Chemla wrote:
> CPU is more than 85% idle on my postfix I5/750 box, but the outbound queue
> is very very slow.
Throughput == Concurrency / Latency
What destination are most of the messages in the queue going to?
What is the associated tran
Le 07/01/2010 20:00, Wietse Venema a écrit :
Patrick Chemla:
Hi,
I am running Postfix 2.5.6 on a Fedora 11 Linux system on a hardware
based Intel I5/750 Quad Core, 8 Gb memory, 160Gb SSD hard disk.
Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared)
and the active queue
Le 07/01/2010 20:03, Barney Desmond a écrit :
2010/1/8 Patrick Chemla
Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared) and
the active queue is actually of 2 millions messages waiting for delivery.
here is my main.cf file:
That's some very thorough information, y
2010/1/8 Patrick Chemla
> Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared) and
> the active queue is actually of 2 millions messages waiting for delivery.
>
> here is my main.cf file:
That's some very thorough information, you've provided plenty of
context and clear descrip
Patrick Chemla:
> Hi,
>
> I am running Postfix 2.5.6 on a Fedora 11 Linux system on a hardware
> based Intel I5/750 Quad Core, 8 Gb memory, 160Gb SSD hard disk.
>
> Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared)
> and the active queue is actually of 2 millions messages
Hi,
I am running Postfix 2.5.6 on a Fedora 11 Linux system on a hardware
based Intel I5/750 Quad Core, 8 Gb memory, 160Gb SSD hard disk.
Incoming messages are entering very fast (500 smtp processes declared)
and the active queue is actually of 2 millions messages waiting for
delivery.
The
39 matches
Mail list logo