Peter Doschkinow ha scritto: > Hi Stefano, > > thanks for your fast reply! I swithched now to james 2.3.1 but I am > seeing only minimal improvements, maybe 5%. > > What I observe is still too many threads waiting - at the OS level I see > that the LWPs(the light weight processes that the java threads from > james are mapped on) spend most of their time waiting on user > locks(around 80-100%), spending only max 8-12% in user time... > > Asuming that the OS is distributing the java thread well among the > available 40 hardware treads, what would be the best configuration for a > load test on say 25 concurrent smtp client connections in terms of > number of spool threads and max. thread number in the default thread > pool? Can I get somehow rid of the impact of the watchdog-threads?
I spool around 1 million/mail per day on a small shared server using 50 threads, CPU usage is always very low, but disk/network usage is high. In my experience the JVM version and the OS change the performance a lot. I'm on linux 2.6 and the latest jvm 6 now. There is not too much you can "tweak" in james spooling unless you write your own spoolmanager object. And there is not a generic rules for number of threads. Keep in mind that the real world scenario is different from a load test. If you want to make a good load test try to add a lot of wait/sleep/timeout/unexpectedclose in your test connections. E.g: In my server dns lookups are one of the most used resources. Furthermore spooling is disk and network intensive rather than cpu/thread intensive: don't expect to see the cpu to go high unless you have a fast disk/cache and a fast network. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
