Storing incoming work dir on ramdisk
t.d.lee at DURHAM.AC.UK
Thu Jan 2 16:20:06 GMT 2003
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:
> Sendmail has *always* been the performance pig and bottleneck
> on my mail-server. While MailScanner 4.x is great, the performance
> of MS 3.x was sufficiently fast to outrun sendmail on my system
> (a dual-CPU Sun E220R), always.
Interesting. Poor old sendmail always seems to have blame heaped upon it.
So I'm going to try to defend it (just a little at least).
With MS 3.x we (university with 100,000 messages/day) found MS (and its
environment), not sendmail, to be the bottleneck. This may have been
because we did ORDB checks from MS, and the apparent MS slowness was
actually DNS/ORDB latency.
Certainly the migration to MS 4.x, with its ability for multiple, parallel
MS processes has helped matters enormously.
For our site MS 4.x/sendmail-8.11 on Sun Ultra-10/Solaris-8 copes
adequately. The critical difference was upgrading MS from 3.x to 4.x.
(But we are now moving to new dual-Intel Redhat, which seems even more
comfortable. Still sendmail!)
: David Lee I.T. Service :
: Systems Programmer Computer Centre :
: University of Durham :
: http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ South Road :
: Durham :
: Phone: +44 191 374 2882 U.K. :
More information about the MailScanner