Stan Hoeppner:
> the time, Ford Motor company wasn't so lucky. They had upgraded all
> their SLES9 VMware guests to SLES10 and discovered this bug in
> production. Ouch!
That seems to be an operations problem. I may be old-fashioned,
but I let a new OS or HW run through its paces for some time
Stan Hoeppner:
> The point I was attempting to make is that, even with todays fast disks,
> on a heavily loaded Postfix server, a 6 fold decrease in disk throughput
> due to an obscure bug like this would likely wreak havoc for a few
> hours, if not days, depending on the skill and experience of th
Wietse Venema put forth on 10/22/2009 4:25 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> running at 1/4 speed (I'm only getting 3MB/sec whereas with the
>> [...] kernel they are getting 14-18MB/sec)"
>
> I hope you have those numbers mixed up, and that you meant to write
> 45MB/s with a good driver and 15MB/s with a ba
For our problem, Postfix was not the issue.
-Original Message-
From: owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org
[mailto:owner-postfix-us...@postfix.org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:25 PM
To: Postfix users
Subject: Re: Postfix 2.6.x slow
Stan Hoeppner
Stan Hoeppner:
> running at 1/4 speed (I'm only getting 3MB/sec whereas with the
> [...] kernel they are getting 14-18MB/sec)"
I hope you have those numbers mixed up, and that you meant to write
45MB/s with a good driver and 15MB/s with a bad one. With single-disk
sequential file access of uncache
Stan Hoeppner:
> I think you've demonstrated it's not slower. I'm wondering why it's not
> faster, vs what you described as about equal, in performance. Granted,
More than 25 years ago people discovered that it is incredibly hard
to spread one program over multiple CPUs such that it keeps every
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 11:18:12AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > There is really no need to pursue this at this time. No evidence has
> > yet been found to support the new system being slower than the old.
>
> I think you've demonstrated it's not slower. I'm wondering why it's not
> faster,
I
Victor Duchovni put forth on 10/22/2009 10:20 AM:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:15:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 8:23 PM:
>>
>>> OLD NEW
>>> Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
>>> i386. x64
>>>
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 08:15:56AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 8:23 PM:
>
> > OLD NEW
> > Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
> > i386. x64
> > 2.4 ghrz cpu. 2.83 ghrz cpu
>
> Hi Eric,
>
Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 8:23 PM:
> OLD NEW
> Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
> i386. x64
> 2.4 ghrz cpu. 2.83 ghrz cpu
Hi Eric,
Would you please provide the following:
1. Each server make/model#
2. CPU brand
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:34:50AM -0700, Eric Vaughn wrote:
>
> We suspect a few things. It seems to be resolved now. Concurrency
> rates were greatly increased during the last test.
>
> 1) Postfix 2.6 allows for a higher per process limit. The OS "ulimit"
> by default, may not necessarily s
We suspect a few things. It seems to be resolved now. Concurrency
rates were greatly increased during the last test.
1) Postfix 2.6 allows for a higher per process limit. The OS "ulimit"
by default, may not necessarily support this. The postfix processes
were running out of file descriptors.
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 05:17:54PM -0700, Eric Vaughn wrote:
> Are there any new features to postfix 2.6.x that would cause it to be
> slow?
Eric your post premature. You don't yet have measurements showing Postfix
2.6 to be "slow". Lets get the volume comparisons, and tcpdump captures
of both th
Eric Vaughn:
> The list of changes (we upgraded a spare server to swap in as a replacement):
> OLD NEW
> Centos 5.0. Centos 5.3 (yum update all)
> i386. x64
> 2.4 ghrz cpu. 2.83 ghrz cpu
> 4 gigs ram. 4 gigs ram
> Op
Eric Vaughn put forth on 10/5/2009 7:17 PM:
> Are there any new features to postfix 2.6.x that would cause it to be slow?
>
> Other than the obvious suspects; stress adaptive behavior, logging,
> ulimit (running out of file descriptors).
>
> We are a very high volume site, we use postfix only as
5:02 2009
Subject: Re: Postfix 2.6.x slow
What else did you change besides Postfix?
Any OS upgrades, changes in libraries, ...
Wietse
What else did you change besides Postfix?
Any OS upgrades, changes in libraries, ...
Wietse
17 matches
Mail list logo
