On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 08:03:14PM +0200, Marco Pizzoli wrote:
> > Yes, but Berkeley DB also works well enough in practice.
> >
>
> I believe you. But my experience comparing the two in OpenLDAP is strongly
> toward lmdb.
The Postfix SMTP cache is a very different use-case. The main
incentive to use LMDB is suboptimal Berkeley DB licensing. For
Postfix, Berkeley DB is likely to perform about the same as LMDB
(perhaps slightly better, or slightly worse, but in neither case
a real bottleneck).
> Could be, but jemalloc (and tcmalloc) give also benefit for memory
> fragmentation, apart for the pure allocation speed.
> > - Increase concurrency as required for the larger TLS
> > round-trip delay. If the average message size is large
> > enough, the latency increase will be small, and perhaps no
> > tuning is required. If the average message size is small,
> > a multiple of 2 or a bit more may be appropriate.
>
> On this latest point I have to *in part* disagree... My experience makes me
> doubtful on just extending the concurrent connections towards the remote
> systems.
When sending to 3rd party MX hosts, indeed yes, but here the OP is
using a single dedicated usptream smarthost relay, so larger
concurrency should not be a problem.
--
Viktor.
