Storing incoming work dir on ramdisk

David Lee t.d.lee at DURHAM.AC.UK
Thu Jan 2 16:20:06 GMT 2003

On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Jeff A. Earickson wrote:

> Julian,
>    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  :
:            South Road            :
:                                           Durham                :
:  Phone: +44 191 374 2882                  U.K.                  :

More information about the MailScanner mailing list