Whups, I missed out an important "NOT" in the second-to-last paragraph. Corrected version is below:
-----Original Message----- From: Colbeck, Andrew Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 10:29 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Version 2-3.0i8 published. If I might butt in ... If you fire up Task Manager on a windows machine (or your favourite ps tool elsewhere), and set the View, Update Speed to High, then sort by the name in reverse, you will see multiple sniffer.exe and one with a PID that doesn't change. That's your persistent instance. What you should see is that all other instances of sniffer.exe wink in and out, with an ever-changing PID. So far, so good. Under a heavy load, your system is slow enough that you will see multiple sniffer.exe instances, and maybe they are using CPU and maybe not, depending on where the CPU load on your system is coming from. If those multiple instances are all using a small amount of RAM, and only the persistent instance uses 4,000 KB of memory, then the code is working well for you. The client instances are NOT loading the rulebase. If some of those instances also have 4,000 KB of memory allocated, then they have gotten impatient and decided to load the rulebase and process the message for themselves. If you have a lot of impatient clients, they will exacerbate your memory and CPU stress, thus the new 2-3.0i8 code that lets them wait longer. Andrew 8) -----Original Message----- From: Frank Osako [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 9:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re[2]: [sniffer] Version 2-3.0i8 published. Hello _M _> Systems with heavier loads _should_ see a reduction in their backlog See a reduction of "what" in their backlog? Can you give an example of how to see this type of measurement? Thanks -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Pete McNeil Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:44 AM To: Jorge Asch Subject: Re[2]: [sniffer] Version 2-3.0i8 published. On Wednesday, October 20, 2004, 12:19:12 PM, Jorge wrote: >> I am particularly interested to hear from MDaemon users who should >> realize a multi-fold improvement in processing speed by using this >> new version of persistent server. This is one of the critical goals >> of these modifications and preliminary responses support that we >> have achieved this goal. >> >> JA> I run Mdaemon and I proces about 10K message a day. What things JA> should I look for? How can I know the performance has actually JA> improved? That's a good question. 10K/day is not very large so you may not see an improvement easily. What you are looking for is higher throughput, or more precisely, that your system is able to process more messages in a given period of time. Systems with heavier loads _should_ see a reduction in their backlog. Systems that have periods of heavy activity should see the these peaks handled more quickly. Hope this helps, _M 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 scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] 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 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
