As far as I can see, the current code uses the default socket buffer
sizes, which in my experience kills data throughput in most cases.
try adding some thing like the following into
SysDepWin.cpp::SysSendFile()
int snd_buf_size = 64*1024;
int rcv_buf_size = 4*1024;
setsockopt(SockFD,SOL_SOCKET,SO_SNDBUF,(char
*)&snd_buf_size,sizeof(snd_buf_size));
setsockopt(SockFD,SOL_SOCKET,SO_RCVBUF,(char
*)&rcv_buf_size,sizeof(rcv_buf_size));
Louis Solomon
www.SteelBytes.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Davide Libenzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "XMail mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2001 7:14 AM
Subject: [xmail] Re: About Xmail Server's Performance
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2001, Jan Patorra wrote:
>
> > hi davide/list,
> >
> >
> > > I use outlook to get messages from LOCALHOST and find it is slow
(about 15
> > seconds) when the message has a big >attachment,e.g 1M bytes.
> >
> > hm, unfortunately this is a point i must agree to, i use pegasus on
the
> > windows boxes and fetchmail and noticed that the
> > time until a big testmail is fetched nearly quadruples in comparison
to
> > qmail - as this is no reason for me to discard xmail
> > it may be worth to be looked after - at least imo....
>
> I bet. On the same hardware ( dual PIII 1GHz 256Mb RAM ) :
>
> Windows 2k: 39000 messages/hour
> Linux 2.4.12: 115000 messages/hour
>
> using statis relaying.
> Windows performance SUCKS compared to Linux.
> Just take a look here:
>
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt6/
> http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-rt4/
>
>
>
>
> - Davide
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe xmail" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For general help: send the line "help" in the body of a message to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
