On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:32:43PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>> The application won't run any faster than the code that serially parses
>> the 30GB file. If this code can use a pool of SMTP sender "threads" and
>> can parse the file quickly enough, you could try that.
>
> The parsing isn't a bottleneck. It currently sends over 6,000/min and we
> had to actually slow it done intentionally because IIS's SMTP server was
> backing up. So I don't think that's an issue. However, if we just relaying
> the message to the posfix machine,
Postfix can accept mail via SMTP very quickly.
> the rates will not hold up either based
> on my testing with smtp-source using DKIM,
This is a waste of time unless you can identify the bottle-neck in your
tests. How are you doing DKIM signing? Are you running out of CPU, ...
> so that's why I'm asking if
> local submission would be any faster?
Not until you find out what's slowing you down. You may need to pay
someone (good) money to figure this out for you. This is an advanced
problem, and few on the list have both the skills and the time to
debug this with you.
--
Viktor.
Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header.
To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit
http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below:
<mailto:majord...@postfix.org?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
If my response solves your problem, the best way to thank me is to not
send an "it worked, thanks" follow-up. If you must respond, please put
"It worked, thanks" in the "Subject" so I can delete these quickly.
