At 17 October, 2020 Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> > Postfix is not an HTTP server handling tens to hundreds of thousands of
> > requests
> > per second, and does not benefit from the optimisations needed for those
> > kinds
> > of workloads. Premature optimisations that sacrifice robustness and
>
On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 02:05:57PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> > Postfix 3.4 and later grudgingly do some event-driven work because
> > TLS connection reuse with OpenSSL is not possible out-of-process.
> > So the tlsproxy(8) process context switches between multiple TLS
> > connections, but th
On 10/17/20 1:23 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:09 AM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>>
>>> The practical limit to the deferred queue size is therefore ~2 days of
>>> throughput, and depends heavily on the per-delivery latency. If
>>> delivery failures are slow (tarpitting or otherw
> On Oct 17, 2020, at 3:09 AM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>
>> The practical limit to the deferred queue size is therefore ~2 days of
>> throughput, and depends heavily on the per-delivery latency. If
>> delivery failures are slow (tarpitting or otherwise slow destinations)
>> the impact is greater.
On 10/16/20 9:24 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> The practical limit to the deferred queue size is therefore ~2 days of
> throughput, and depends heavily on the per-delivery latency. If
> delivery failures are slow (tarpitting or otherwise slow destinations)
> the impact is greater.
Can the latency
On Fri, Oct 16, 2020 at 02:37:04PM -0400, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
> > Unless there's a particularly good reason why you believe that OpenSMTPD
> > would do better than Postfix in bulk mail delivery performance, it is not
> > helpful to recommend it here.
>
> I misunderstood your previous message,
On 10/16/20 2:10 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>> On Oct 16, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>>
>> I don’t recommend stock OpenSMTPD for security reasons, although I
>> have some patches that make it much better in this regard. However,
>> all of those relate to local deliveries. If you ca
> On Oct 16, 2020, at 3:14 PM, Demi M. Obenour wrote:
>
> I don’t recommend stock OpenSMTPD for security reasons, although I
> have some patches that make it much better in this regard. However,
> all of those relate to local deliveries. If you can afford to disable
> local deliveries, OpenSMTP
On 10/16/20 8:57 AM, @lbutlr wrote:
> On 13 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Zsombor B wrote:
>> I know this is a complicated question but what/where do you see possible
>> bottlenecks in postfix?
>> Is it CPU? RAM? Disk IO?
>
> In theory? Sure, any of those could be a bottle neck. On actuality, the
> bottl
On 13 Oct 2020, at 22:47, Zsombor B wrote:
> I know this is a complicated question but what/where do you see possible
> bottlenecks in postfix?
> Is it CPU? RAM? Disk IO?
In theory? Sure, any of those could be a bottle neck. On actuality, the bottles
necks are processing spam if you receive mai
Zsombor B:
> Hi,
>
>
> I know this is a complicated question but what/where do you see
> possible bottlenecks in postfix?
> Is it CPU? RAM? Disk IO?
>
> I'm building an infra to send out ~3-5 million emails a day.
That might have been challenging 25 years ago. As Viktor notes,
the real chall
On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 06:47:19AM +0200, Zsombor B wrote:
> I know this is a complicated question but what/where do you see
> possible bottlenecks in postfix?
> Is it CPU? RAM? Disk IO?
Whatever you have least of, relative to the workload you're expecting to
process :-) Generally speaking you
12 matches
Mail list logo
