Wietse Venema wrote > si5: >> >>May I suggest: you test the modified code and the unmodified code >> >>and then try to explain why one is better than the other. >> >> >> Wietse >> >> Yes we have tested unmodified code with spirent(200,000 mails per 10 >> minutes) and drops were very less. > > That's 300/s, a performance level that Viktor reported for unmodified > Postfix with a Dell server from 2003. > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/mailing.postfix.users/pPcRJFJmdeA > > "One single Postfix instance has been clocked at ~300 message > deliveries/second[8] across the Internet, running on commodity > hardware (a vintage-2003 Dell 1850 system with battery-backed > MegaRAID controller and two SCSI disks). This delivery rate is > an order of magnitude below the "intrinsic" limit of 2500 message > deliveries/second[8] that was achieved with the mail queue on > a RAM disk while delivering to the "discard" transport (with a > dual-core Opteron system in 2007)." > >> Ofcourse the unmodified code is better >> but we modified it based on our requirements and now we are testing it >> too. >> And it is showing significant mail drops. Once we are able make the drops >> less we want to document the maximum load capacities of this modified >> server. Thatswhy we are trying to find a document which has such >> information >> so that we can do an analogous testing and documentation. > > There is no 'formula' to predict the behavior of a non-trivial > program, especially not when the performance is determined by remote > network performance, remore DNS server performance, and remote SMTP > server performance. Meaningful numbers require meaningful measurements. > > BTW I would not consider a mail system as 'working' until all 'lost > mail' instances can be explained. Your requirements may vary. > > Wietse
Thankyou for taking time to reply. The information are really helpful. Regards -- Sent from: http://postfix.1071664.n5.nabble.com/Postfix-Users-f2.html
