On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 11:55:06AM +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > You've suddenly switched topics from message injection, for which
> > the default limits are more than ample to global process limits,
> > which for an MTA that mostly sends control delivery concurrency.
>
> Sorry, I misundersto
On Thu, 2014-07-31 at 01:56 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07:18AM +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 22:43 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > > Connection re-use does not prevent concurrency, you'd need a pool
> > > of connections or parallel submiss
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:07:18AM +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 22:43 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > Connection re-use does not prevent concurrency, you'd need a pool
> > of connections or parallel submission processes pulling messages
> > from the application queue. Co
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 22:43 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> Connection re-use does not prevent concurrency, you'd need a pool
> of connections or parallel submission processes pulling messages
> from the application queue. Concurrency is more important than
> connection re-use.
Ah, okay. Is defau
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 11:33:31PM +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> One more similar question: is there much value in reusing the same
> connection to send each email? Obviously that removes the expense of
> creating a connection, but prevents parallel submission. Should I be
> trying to do both?
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 14:23 +, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:06:34AM +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I am submitting using the sendmail command, rather than
> > SMTP (against the advice of the tuning README) - how much difference is
> > this likely to ma
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:06:34AM +0100, Andrew Beverley wrote:
> Incidentally, I am submitting using the sendmail command, rather than
> SMTP (against the advice of the tuning README) - how much difference is
> this likely to make?
This doubles the disk I/O cost of message delivery and serializ
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 11:34 +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
[...]
> spit a lot of messages in the queue means that from the
> application side the sending process is done, deliver
> bulk mail to the final RCPT is a different story
Thanks for the additional info.
> for *really* large amount of mail
Am 30.07.2014 11:27, schrieb Andrew Beverley:
> On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 11:12 +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
>> Am 30.07.2014 11:06, schrieb Andrew Beverley:
>>> I am looking for somebody who can provide consultancy to help me tune
>>> some Postfix installations. Can anybody provide recommendations?
On Wed, 2014-07-30 at 11:12 +0200, li...@rhsoft.net wrote:
> Am 30.07.2014 11:06, schrieb Andrew Beverley:
> > I am looking for somebody who can provide consultancy to help me tune
> > some Postfix installations. Can anybody provide recommendations?
>
> tune *what* context
Mail delivery. Lots of
Am 30.07.2014 11:06, schrieb Andrew Beverley:
> I am looking for somebody who can provide consultancy to help me tune
> some Postfix installations. Can anybody provide recommendations?
tune *what* context
> I can provide further details if needed, but in a nutshell I am
> delivering a lot of li
Hi Guys,
I am looking for somebody who can provide consultancy to help me tune
some Postfix installations. Can anybody provide recommendations?
I can provide further details if needed, but in a nutshell I am
delivering a lot of list email which is generated using Perl scripts.
I would prefer an
12 matches
Mail list logo
