Victor Duchovni put forth on 10/22/2009 11:41 AM: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:18:12AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >>> There is really no need to pursue this at this time. No evidence has >>> yet been found to support the new system being slower than the old. >> I think you've demonstrated it's not slower. I'm wondering why it's not >> faster, > > In a complex multi-node system, the CPU capacity of one node is not > necessarily on the critical path. > >> It's an interesting issue and piques my curiosity. I'd like to pursue >> this aspect to see if it might be a factor, or none at all. > > "There is no there there" at this time.
I have always assumed the limitation is downstream as his postfix is proxy only. However, no details of the downstream are forthcoming. I also assume no matter how fast the hardware he puts the proxy on, it's going to still be limited by how fast the downstream systems digest the smtp sessions. Like I said, I'm merely trying to identify the differences between the old and new proxy platform, as that is the only information so far forthcoming. I'm not continuing to flog the dead horse here, if indeed this horse is dead. So I'll just let it rest. -- Stan
