Let me know when it is safe to run this on a production server Thank you
Harry Vanderzand inTown Internet & Computer Services > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:10 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [sniffer] Version 2-3.0i5 posted for testing > > Hello Sniffer Folks, > > Version 2-3.0i5 has been posted for testing. > > > <http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Betas/MessageSniffe > r2-3.0i5-Distribution.zip> > > This version implements a number of performance enhancements > relating to the use of a Persistent server instance. > > Be careful - this version has not been heavily tested. However it > appears to be quite stable and extremely fast. > > MDaemon users should see a significant improvement in performance. > Please let me know if this is true. The reason is that since most > MDaemon system integrate Message Sniffer through the content filter > and the content filter in MDaemon is apparently single threaded. The > performance tuning features of this version allow the client and > persistent server instances to coordinate much more closely with > regard to the available computing power in the system so that > polling delays _should be_ reduced significantly. _IN THEORY_ the > improved signaling between client and persistent server instances > will allow "polling synchronization" such that the highest possible > performance for the hardware and load conditions can be achieved. > > Having said that, I hope it turns out to be true ;-) Let me know!! > > Multi-Threaded systems should see a significant improvement in > performance also. In particular, jobs are now collected in batches > by the persistent server instance. This eliminates a great deal of > overhead (directory scans, locking, etc) on the part of the server > instance. In addition, client instances can now detect the presence > of a persistent server without locking and scanning the workspace. > The combination virtually eliminates locking conflicts and any > overhead usually associated with coordinating the peer-server > process. > > I don't know precisely what performance increases you should expect > from this. However I will say that in static tests the program ran > so quickly that I thought it was broken. Message processing rates on > my Toshiba 6100 were consistently above 14.2 Msg/Sec with CPU loads > in the high 80s. > > I have not yet tested this version on *nix systems... but I expect > similar performance improvements. > > I urge caution again - this is a somewhat radical set of changes > with some unexpectedly good _apparent_ performance improvements. I'm > not sure that I trust it yet... but I also haven't seen it fail. > More testing needs to be done... (I appreciate your help!) > > Please do keep me informed. > > Thanks, > _M > > Pete McNeil (Madscientist) > President, MicroNeil Research Corporation Chief SortMonster > (www.sortmonster.com) > > > > This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For > information and (un)subscription instructions go to > http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html > This E-Mail came from the Message Sniffer mailing list. For information and (un)subscription instructions go to http://www.sortmonster.com/MessageSniffer/Help/Help.html
