Dave Sill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 2 August 2000 at 10:14:56 -0400
> > http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/
>
> Just noticed that this is now available in English:
>
> http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html
His methodology looks reasonably sound, now that I can read the
description of it. And he seems entirely aware of the shortcomings,
which leads me to trust his judgement on other matters as well.
Looks like qmail took 20 seconds and sendmail took 1750 seconds to
deliver his test load. Not surprising! (uncached case)
Also note that in the cached case postfix appears to beat qmail at
delivering all the mail, at least on one graph.
However, did people notice that sendmail actually did *fewer* DNS
queries? I had understood that for total bandwidth use, qmail won
over sendmail partly for doing less DNS traffic, but this doesn't seem
to be the case in this study.
And unfortunately he only counts syn/fin and dns packets, there's
nothing that directly records bandwidth used. I guess we can make
assumptions about data transmitted per SMTP connection to calculate
bandwidth, and not be too far off. His graphs seem to show all
mailers making essentially the same number of SMTP connections, so it
sounds like his address mix doesn't allow for much multi-rcpt.
(postfix took 30 seconds, exim 500, zmailer I can't tell. Am I
reading the graphs wrong? Zmailer shows increasing count of DNS
queries off to the end of the map, but no increase in SMTP syn or
fin. Now I'm confused.)
--
Photos: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon
Bookworms: http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ SF: http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b
David Dyer-Bennet / Welcome to the future! / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
