>>Pre-beta >>20040304211333 d9bec001201263026.smd 312 0 Match 89089 >20040304211333 d9bec001201263026.smd 312 0 Final 89089 >>Persistant sniffer >>20040407042039 d819316c90154969c.smd 1000 32 Match 94972 >>20040407042039 d819316c90154969c.smd 1000 32 Final 94972
>This doesn't make any sense. I have no good theory for this. I am unable to >create any scenario where using the persistent engine degrades performance. >In all of my tests on three separate platforms the persistent engine >produces a significant improvement - even under unreasonably harsh conditions. My findings are that persistent is offering great benefits, havnt tried an excessively harsh test yet, but i'm about to do that. I am going to disable my postfix delivery process and throw them as fast as Imail will accept/process them in a minute. This usually brings my server to its knees and jumps the cpu from 20% to 100% during the stress... will give results in a few. I ran performance monitor on CPU & Disk while running sniffer in persistent and non-persistent. here are screencaps: http://staff.netsmith.net/sniffer/ Persistent mode reduced cpu load & scan times significantly. For those who may not be familar in troubleshooting disk bottlenecks, here is a good starting place: http://computerperformance.co.uk/HealthCheck/Disk_Health.htm My configuration is: Dual P3 1.13Ghz Cpu 1GB RAM Disk0 (C: E: F:) System/Pagefile/Sniffer/Spool Disk1 (D: ) Mailbox data/imail/declude&declue logs
<<winmail.dat>>
