New speed benchmark

Glenn Steen glenn.steen at
Sun Feb 5 16:02:58 GMT 2006

On 04/02/06, Res <res at> wrote:
> 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.

Ok... I thought you said that when you ran it with SA, you had
most/all DNS related stuff disabled, and that it was then at
approximately 4 LA.... Obviously I read you wrong.
(One could argue that load averages are not the best performance
measurements there is, but lets not walk that way:-)

> >> 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 :)

Fair enough. Note the smileys... I'm certain that most people on this
list are beyond newbie status, and the comment was more of a joke than
anything. Obviously a poor one at that.

> especially those that argue vigorously its better than sendmail, when they
> have never used sendmail
I got fed up with Sendmail about ... Oh, 8 years ago. I still use it,
if it happens to be on any particular system, in house... But not for
"front side" use.
Qmail and Postfix share several traits (security "by design" foremost
among them), and when I looked at what to use instead of Sendmail (a
couple of years later, or so, when we decided to retire the badly
working boxed solution some fool^H^H^Hine PHB had bought), it was a
very close race between those two. At the time I disliked the ...
"political" nature of Qmail a bit, so went with Postfix... Just to
discover that Mr Venema is indeed as opinionated and "political".
Sigh. But the MTA is still a very nice piece of SW, so .. I'll stick
with it:-).

> 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 :)

That's why I'd like for someone with the knowhow, resources and "big
load" to do such a comparison... I'd do it myself, but I simply lack
the influx (and to a certain extent diversity) of mails to do such a
test justice. I'm still holding out hope that Jules will be bored
enough one day to do it:-).

And from the above, one can infer that speed of processing/delivery
isn't a factor on my systems, so it'd be for purely ...
technology/statistical pleasure (on my part, at least:-).

-- Glenn
email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se

More information about the MailScanner mailing list