W dniu 22.01.2012 01:14, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
On 1/21/2012 6:53 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
On 21.01.2012 15:42, Michael Tokarev wrote:
On 20.01.2012 16:01, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
And having said all that, I think it'd be interesting to
understand why the OP has this slow system. It should not
be
On 1/21/2012 6:53 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 21.01.2012 15:42, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>> On 20.01.2012 16:01, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> []
>>> As it turns out the OP has Seagate LP drives which are not Advanced
>>> Format 512/4096 drives. No alignment issue there.
>>
>> I never had/usd these so
On 21.01.2012 15:42, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> On 20.01.2012 16:01, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[]
>> As it turns out the OP has Seagate LP drives which are not Advanced
>> Format 512/4096 drives. No alignment issue there.
>
> I never had/usd these so don't know. Apparently the LP drives
> are more opti
On 20.01.2012 16:01, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/20/2012 1:50 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
>
>> Please excuse me for the somewhat harsh words, but except of the
>> alignment issues which should be solved for once when partitioning
>> and creating filesystem, the rest is a complete bullshit collected
On 1/20/2012 1:50 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Please excuse me for the somewhat harsh words, but except of the
> alignment issues which should be solved for once when partitioning
> and creating filesystem, the rest is a complete bullshit collected
> from various forums where people does not unde
On 1/20/2012 1:30 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
> W dniu 20.01.2012 01:39, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
>> On 1/19/2012 5:07 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
>>> Yes, you have right. But I found recently, that disk mounted on my
>>> server are slow 5.9K. My tests on in shows that they do fsync 1.5x-2x
>>> slower th
On 20.01.2012 04:39, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
[]
>>> But that
>>> alone isn't going to fix a 10x performance deficit. You've probably got
>>> multiple factors degrading performance.
>>
>> Yes, you have right. But I found recently, that disk mounted on my
>> server are slow 5.9K. My tests on in shows t
W dniu 20.01.2012 01:39, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
On 1/19/2012 5:07 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
Yes, you have right. But I found recently, that disk mounted on my
server are slow 5.9K. My tests on in shows that they do fsync 1.5x-2x
slower than 7.2K with quite often 5x-10x slower peak. Together with
On 1/19/2012 5:07 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
> W dniu 19.01.2012 08:15, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
>
>> To demonstrate that fsync alone shouldn't be a factor here,
>
> But it is. I've straced sendmail to "fsync" waiting lot of time. It was
> 80% or more of queue time.
>
>> Queuing 15K messages took 6
W dniu 19.01.2012 08:15, Stan Hoeppner pisze:
To demonstrate that fsync alone shouldn't be a factor here,
But it is. I've straced sendmail to "fsync" waiting lot of time. It was
80% or more of queue time.
Queuing 15K messages took 6 minutes 30 seconds on a single 7.2K drive,
again while co
On 1/18/2012 3:26 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> On 1/18/2012 4:46 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
>> I don't know why it take some much time, but it cannot be disabled
>> (fsync) in postfix due to delivery guarantee. However, my mails (those
>> ones) are not very important, and lost some of them is not a
On Sat, 18 Feb 2012, Andreas Berton wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012, Simone Ruffilli wrote:
Il 18/01/2012 10:35, Ralf Hildebrandt ha scritto:
> * Simone Ruffilli:
> > >whenever I submit to my postfix server a mail having a massive
> > >(~15k)
> > >recipient list, it takes foreve
On 1/18/2012 4:46 AM, Konrad Rzepecki wrote:
> I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case I
> send ~10k-20k mails through sendmail wrapper. My problem is caused by
> fsync done on EVERY queued mail. It take on my servers (4 core AMD @
> ext4 @ LVM @ RAID10 @ 8disk) ~ 0.2
Konrad Rzepecki:
> W dniu 18.01.2012 13:03, Wietse Venema pisze:
> > Konrad Rzepecki:
> >> I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case I
> >> send ~10k-20k mails through sendmail wrapper. My problem is caused by
> >> fsync done on EVERY queued mail. It take on my servers (
W dniu 18.01.2012 13:03, Wietse Venema pisze:
Konrad Rzepecki:
I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case I
send ~10k-20k mails through sendmail wrapper. My problem is caused by
fsync done on EVERY queued mail. It take on my servers (4 core AMD @
ext4 @ LVM @ RAID10 @
W dniu 18.01.2012 13:07, Wietse Venema pisze:
Ralf Hildebrandt:
eatmydata postfix start
But I don't know if it's LD_PRELOAD trick will work with postfix out
of the box.
postdrop is setgid, and will not work with LD_PRELOAD.
Too bad :(
Why are you queuing one file per recipient? That reall
Ralf Hildebrandt:
> eatmydata postfix start
>
> But I don't know if it's LD_PRELOAD trick will work with postfix out
> of the box.
postdrop is setgid, and will not work with LD_PRELOAD.
Why are you queuing one file per recipient? That really
sucks performance even without a broken Linux fsync.
Konrad Rzepecki:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> W dniu 18.01.2012 10:29, Simone Ruffilli pisze:
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > whenever I submit to my postfix server a mail having a massive (~15k)
> > recipient list, it takes forever to accept and start delivering it.
>
> I have
W dniu 18.01.2012 12:03, Ralf Hildebrandt pisze:
* Konrad Rzepecki:
I've already tried SMTP. This make no change since it also create
queue file, which must be fsynced before client is notified about
successfully queuing...
sendmail submission writes two files (maildrop queue). SMTP submissio
* Konrad Rzepecki :
> >You can use mini_sendmail (which uses SMTP but gives you a sendmail
> >command for that)
>
> I've already tried SMTP. This make no change since it also create
> queue file, which must be fsynced before client is notified about
> successfully queuing...
sendmail submission
W dniu 18.01.2012 11:50, Ralf Hildebrandt pisze:
* Konrad Rzepecki:
I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case
I send ~10k-20k mails through sendmail wrapper. My problem is caused
by fsync done on EVERY queued mail. It take on my servers (4 core AMD
@ ext4 @ LVM @ RAI
* Ralf Hildebrandt :
> * Konrad Rzepecki :
>
> > I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case
> > I send ~10k-20k mails through sendmail wrapper. My problem is caused
> > by fsync done on EVERY queued mail. It take on my servers (4 core AMD
> > @ ext4 @ LVM @ RAID10 @ 8dis
* Konrad Rzepecki :
> I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case
> I send ~10k-20k mails through sendmail wrapper. My problem is caused
> by fsync done on EVERY queued mail. It take on my servers (4 core AMD
> @ ext4 @ LVM @ RAID10 @ 8disk) ~ 0.2-0.3s for each one. Somet
W dniu 18.01.2012 10:29, Simone Ruffilli pisze:
Hello everyone,
whenever I submit to my postfix server a mail having a massive (~15k)
recipient list, it takes forever to accept and start delivering it.
I have similar problem, and I suspect you may also hit it. In my case I
send ~10k-20k mails
* Simone Ruffilli :
> smtpd_client_restrictions = *sleep 1*, reject_rbl_client
> bl.spamcop.net, reject_rbl_client sbl.spamhaus.org, reject_rbl_client
> xbl.spamhaus.org
Ah DAMN
> Can that be somehow responsible of my slowness? I tried to send a
> mail to 2k generated non-existant remote addre
Il 18/01/2012 11:22, Ralf Hildebrandt ha scritto:
* Simone Ruffilli:
Each recipient has to be checked against virtual_mailbox_domains and
virtual_alias_maps (you don't have virtual_alias_domains set?), since
the recipient COULD be one of your own recipients.
make sure those queries are fast.
* Simone Ruffilli :
> No logs actually (I'll check if Thunderbird provides some useful log).
> On my last attempt thunderbird stood stuck for ~20 minutes
> ("Connected to smtp_server ..."), then postfix (rightfully so!)
> complained 5.1.1 about an unexistant local address (this one deserves
> anot
Il 18/01/2012 10:35, Ralf Hildebrandt ha scritto:
* Simone Ruffilli:
> whenever I submit to my postfix server a mail having a massive (~15k)
> recipient list, it takes forever to accept and start delivering it.
How do you submit the mail? Got some logs?
No logs actually (I'll check if Thund
* Simone Ruffilli :
> Hello everyone,
>
> whenever I submit to my postfix server a mail having a massive (~15k)
> recipient list, it takes forever to accept and start delivering it.
How do you submit the mail? Got some logs?
> Has it something to do with address validation (which, if I
> underst
Hello everyone,
whenever I submit to my postfix server a mail having a massive (~15k)
recipient list, it takes forever to accept and start delivering it.
I've done everything in the checklist (namely DNS caching), but it seems
like the problem is not related to a DNS issue: tcpdump-ing port 5
30 matches
Mail list logo
