On Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 04:51:17PM -0400, Brandon Hilkert wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Victor Duchovni"
> <victor.ducho...@morganstanley.com>
> To: <postfix-users@postfix.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 4:43 PM
> Subject: Re: Mail drop
>
>
>> 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.
>
> I"m not disputing this fact. I used smtp-source with 10 connections.
>
> Without DKIM signing - 14,634 emails/min
> With DKIM signing - 4,762 emails/min
>
> I think we would both agree that that's a large discrepancy.
Yes, but these numbers are much better than what you reported originally,
if DKIM consumes all available CPU, find a faster DKIM engine. If DKIM
clobbers the disk capacity, consider placing the working area of the DKIM
process in tmpfs, because neither milters nor SMTP proxies queue mail, so
their need persistent storage.
How are you doing DKIM signing and which resource is consumed, CPU,
disk, memory or network?
--
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.
