Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/27/2010 5:50 PM:
From your questions above, I could see where you're coming from that if
Server2 has performance problem then it would make sense to see the
queue built up at Server1. I can confirm server2 is very underload at
any time, the server is
Hi Stan
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Date: Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:23:15AM -0500
Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com):
: What piqued my curiosity is why the queue on server2 starting growing, and
: rather large at that, _after_ you got the Postfix bottleneck straightened out
- Original Message
From: Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 2:23:15 AM
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/27/2010 5:50 PM:
From your
questions above, I could see where you're coming
- Original Message
From: Daniel V. Reinhardt crypto...@yahoo.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 3:32:04 AM
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
- Original Message
From: Stan Hoeppner
ymailto=mailto:s...@hardwarefreak.com;
href
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 06:21:01PM -0500
Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com):
: Can you provide some more specs on server2? IIRC you said you had a multidisk
: RAID array on serv2. What RAID level and how many disks? What filesystem
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
/etc/postfix/transport:
server2.com: relay:[10.0.2.73]
/etc/postfix/master.cf:
relay unix - - n - 200 smtp
-o smtp_helo_timeout=3s
-o smtp_connect_timeout=3s
-o
- the settings above are based from reading
TUNING_README.html, it's trial and error.
CP
Subject: Re: performance tuning - relay
Date: Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500
Quoting Stan Hoeppner (s...@hardwarefreak.com):
: Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
:
: /etc
On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 01:53:46AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/24/2010 11:33 PM:
/etc/postfix/transport:
server2.com:relay:[10.0.2.73]
/etc/postfix/master.cf:
relay unix - - n - 200 smtp
-o
Christian Purnomo put forth on 6/25/2010 8:01 AM:
With the settings above, the queue is now down to 2442 within 20
minutes. It was at 21,000 mark when I sent my first email below
(nearly 12 hours ago), so the progress has been very minimal until the
change above. The bottleneck has now
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
any thoughts on how to mount the ramfs to get a true test of running the
queue in memory?
In /etc/fstab:
/dev/shm /var/spool/postfix tmpfs
defaults,size=300m,mode=770,uid=0,gid=0 0 0
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und
Brandon Hilkert:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
That depends entirely on how good the script is.
You were talking about sending mail from Exchange though Postfix.
Now you are talking about a home-grown
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
To: Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Saturday, March 21, 2009 5:28 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
any thoughts on how to mount the ramfs to get a true test of running
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
So tmpfs does use the ram ? I as able to get tmpfs to work, but there
was some notion that it too uses the disk.
It uses RAM, but will swap to disk if it needs to. There's no guarantee
that it won't cause disk activity.
Terry
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
In /etc/fstab:
/dev/shm /var/spool/postfix tmpfs
defaults,size=300m,mode=770,uid=0,gid=0 0 0
So tmpfs does use the ram ?
Yep
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 02:08:51AM +, Duane Hill wrote:
I'm just following this thread because of curiosity.
tmpfs? Or, do you mean ramfs (like Ralf spoke of). I believe there was a
response already made by Wietse with regards to tmpfs that stated:
tmpfs is backed by the swap file,
On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 09:05:34AM -0400, Terry Carmen wrote:
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
So tmpfs does use the ram ? I as able to get tmpfs to work, but there was
some notion that it too uses the disk.
It uses RAM, but will swap to disk if it needs to. There's no guarantee
that it won't
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:30 PM, Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org wrote:
Brandon Hilkert:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
simulate sending it out to the internet
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to
not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey signing into
the process. The choice has been made to go
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:52:42 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
As I mentioned, we're using the XFS system for the queue, does that provide
any additional benefit, or would ext3 perform the same? Keep in mind, we
will be dealing with 1,000,000 piece mailouts during a session. My findings
were that
Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
- Original Message -
From: Rainer Frey (Inxmail GmbH) rainer.f...@inxmail.de
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:54 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Friday 20 March 2009 02:52:42 Brandon
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
Yes
--
Ralf Hildebrandt
Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
http://www.computerbeschimpfung.de
C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it
On Friday 20 March 2009 12:04:22 Brandon Hilkert wrote:
Is a simple ext3 partition usually the recommend file system?
Please do not top post.
We use ext3 to have simple, repeatable, clear server setups without surprises
or pitfalls. Performance is good enough for our needs, so I never actually
What's the best way to clearly identify that syslog is the issue?
- Original Message -
From: Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 11:12 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
SQL
- Original Message -
From: Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday
Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I also put the queue directory back on an ext3 partition and the rates
went up by about a factor of two.
Also, by default the syslog messages were already set with
-/var/log/mail.log. I disabled mail logging all together and found no
change in rates.
My disk is
Brandon Hilkert:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I tried:
mkdir /ram
mount -t ramfs none /ram
and when I send a mail, postfix says there's not enough space in the queue.
Should I be doing it a different way?
Postfix requires that the amount of space is
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
To: Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu
Cc: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
Sorry if this is a stupid question, but how do I go about this. I
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
To: Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu
Cc: Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org; postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
and when I send a mail
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I've been running everything from scripts, hoping to zero in on the
bottleneck.
How many messages are you sending in parallel in the injector scripts?
SMTP is a high latency half-duplex protocol, and a single injector will
never
- Original Message -
From: Victor Duchovni victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I've been running everything from
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:32:26PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
- Original Message - From: Victor Duchovni
victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 01:01:55PM
On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:27:27AM -0700, J Sloan wrote:
For what it's worth, we've found ext3 to be far too slow for our needs.
The best setup we've found is reiserfs, mounted with noatime and
notail options -
Lets not start file system wars in this thread. The OP's problem is
largely
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 6:52 AM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination of
SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're looking to
not only improve the rates, but incorporate
Brandon Hilkert:
what is best to look out and compare?
When the disk is 100% busy, then it is the bottle neck. Disks can
be 100% busy jumping around doing very little I/O.
As Noel suggested in earlier email, try running smtp-sink which
does no disk I/O at all. If things are still
- Original Message -
From: Ralf Hildebrandt ralf.hildebra...@charite.de
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 9:14 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
I was able to get it to mount to tmpfs and it showed no change
* Brandon Hilkert bhilk...@vt.edu:
You said ext3 was faster, thus I think your ramfs test was flawed.
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
So that would mean my disk is not a contribution factor right?
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change in
throughput with my script on a tmpfs vs ext3 drive.
So that would mean my disk is not a contribution factor right?
I'm just following this thread because of curiosity.
tmpfs? Or,
- Original Message -
From: Duane Hill d.h...@yournetplus.com
To: postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 10:08 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I was able to mount it to a tmpfs partition. There was no change
Brandon Hilkert:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
of SQL and IIS SMTP. We get rates now of about 5,000/min. We're
looking to not only improve the rates, but incorporate DKIM/Domainkey
signing into the process. The choice has been made to go with
postfix
for your help!
Brandon
- Original Message -
From: Wietse Venema wie...@porcupine.org
To: Postfix users postfix-users@postfix.org
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: Performance tuning
Brandon Hilkert:
We send out a pretty volume of emails right now using a combination
On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 09:52:42PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
I understand what you mean about sending to one server. I'm going to try
and setup a few more receiving servers so that I can more accurately
simulate sending it out to the internet.
Did you at least take time to rule out the
44 matches
Mail list logo
