New speed benchmark

[Res]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, Glenn Steen wrote:

> That in the greater part explains the difference in load avgs. Not
> that I know exactly what network tests Jules ran in this case, but
> your low figures are simply due to you not doing 1) SA, and 2) SAs BL
> lookups. As mentioned, these two tend to add some "real" load and (in
> the latter case) significant "unreal" load;-).
>

Yes, but read what I said, in duplicate circumstances avg was 4 against
  10 :)    the 1-2 is without it.


>> But qmailscan has a bad habbit of not being able to handle alot of stuff
>> gracefully, which is why I was after a clear cut guide on how to install
>> MS on a qmail system,  because until the sendmail consortium can produce a
>> copy of sendmail that works identical to qmail in relation to like with
>> vpopmail for virtuals there is no beating that combination, be it for
>> visp's or hosting.
>
> Did someone mention postfix ....:-):-)

looked at it a few years back, decided no and dont intend to, also had 
enuf of the wietse patsies trying to thrash it down everybodys throats on
other lists, its akin to spamming :)

especially those that argue vigorously its better than sendmail, when they 
have never used sendmail

At least I benchtext MTA's before discounting them, and I found when 
configured right sendmail even beats qmail at speed for delivery and both
leave postfix in their wake, but now we are way off topic :)



-- 
Cheers
Res