Graeme Fowler wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 11:40 +0100, Zbigniew Szalbot wrote: > >> As per recent discussion I accidentally come across a similar topic >> http://forums.atjeu.com/showthread.php?t=434 >> >> I'd be interested what you think about the CPanel official remarks re >> exim. And Marc - they give a link to some bulk mailer which can - they >> claim - send 300K / hour which is still far from you would want to >> achieve. >> > > With respect, most of the statements regarding "standard" things and > throughput of Exim there are the opinion of the author and not backed up > by any statistical evidence. > > I have just produced a test config for Exim, stripped down, to > stress-test delivery (which I can generate using John Jetmore's > excellent swaks tool, amongst other things). It drops everything > to /dev/null which means it is *only* testing the MTA, rather than the > local disk subsystems, DNS lookups, and so on. > > Using a single "While [ true ]; do swaks <options>; done" loop on the > test host itself I can easily reach almost 30000 messages/hour. > > Using 5 simultaneous loops it reaches 65000 messages/hour - bear in mind > that this is not optimised (yet) and is using the MTA host to generate > the tests themselves, which means there's an overhead being created > which limits the number of test loops I can run (I'm CPU bound, and this > is a desktop box, not a server). One suspects that given more time to > devise a full test methodology, with a properly optimised config, I > could push even this box to significantly higher throughput. > > If someone would like to point me at some "standard" MTA > tests/comparisons, I'd be delighted to run them. > > It's my opinion that this thread is dead. > > >
Just curious, did you put the queue in ram disk? I'm wondering how fast it can run with no disk IO. -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
