Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 2:26 PM:
> My objection was to your suggestion that a single postmap command
> is representative of Postfix performance. Given that there is easily
> a factor 100 difference in compile time versus query time, a single
> postmap command is typical only for mach
Stan Hoeppner:
> Thank you for the detailed explanation Wietse. Given the low mail
> volume of this MX (<2000 connections/day) would increasing max_idle from
> 100s to something like 5m or 10m be sane, to keep proxymap alive longer,
> thus decreasing the frequency of table parsing, and thus total
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 02:06:52PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Thank you for the detailed explanation Wietse. Given the low mail
> volume of this MX (<2000 connections/day) would increasing max_idle from
> 100s to something like 5m or 10m be sane, to keep proxymap alive longer,
Yes, that may b
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 1:35 PM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>>
>>> That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>>
>> Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it sure looks like each
>> query is taking over half a
Some text was lost ruring cut-and-paste. I have added it below.
Wietse
Stan Hoeppner:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>
> > That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>
> Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it sure looks like each
Stan Hoeppner:
> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>
> > That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>
> Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it sure looks like each
> query is taking over half a second.
>
> Table has 67669 CIDRs:
>
> [r...@gree
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 7:20 AM:
> Stan Hoeppner:
> [ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
>> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>>
>>> That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>>
>> Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
>
> > That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
>
> Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it sure looks like each
> query is taking over half a s
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/24/2010 6:18 AM:
> That's 0.5 seconds to read the table once, and milliseconds to query it.
Is it? I must be misreading this then. But it sure looks like each
query is taking over half a second.
Table has 67669 CIDRs:
[r...@greer]/etc/postfix/cidr_files$ time pos
Stan Hoeppner:
[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> Wietse Venema put forth on 11/23/2010 6:57 PM:
> > Victor Duchovni:
> >> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:35:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> >>
> >>> Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote
Victor Duchovni put forth on 11/23/2010 11:05 PM:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:04:47PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> I'm guessing the
>> latency is actually higher when smtpd queries proxymap than when timing
>> postmap -q. Is this the case?
>
> Not necessarily, it depends on how memory-const
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:04:47PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> I'm guessing the
> latency is actually higher when smtpd queries proxymap than when timing
> postmap -q. Is this the case?
Not necessarily, it depends on how memory-constrained your system is.
Paging in a large table in a large num
Wietse Venema put forth on 11/23/2010 6:57 PM:
> Victor Duchovni:
>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:35:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>>
>>> Victor Duchovni:
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Would you please give us the run down on why these map types (an
Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:35:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
>
> > Victor Duchovni:
> > > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> > >
> > > > Would you please give us the run down on why these map types (and maybe
> > > > others) shouldn't be used wit
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:35:49PM -0500, Wietse Venema wrote:
> Victor Duchovni:
> > On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> >
> > > Would you please give us the run down on why these map types (and maybe
> > > others) shouldn't be used with proxymap due to performance r
Victor Duchovni:
> On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
> > Would you please give us the run down on why these map types (and maybe
> > others) shouldn't be used with proxymap due to performance reasons? You
> > mentioned something about this long ago but I can't seem
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 05:20:11PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Would you please give us the run down on why these map types (and maybe
> others) shouldn't be used with proxymap due to performance reasons? You
> mentioned something about this long ago but I can't seem to locate that
> email in m
Victor,
Would you please give us the run down on why these map types (and maybe
others) shouldn't be used with proxymap due to performance reasons? You
mentioned something about this long ago but I can't seem to locate that
email in my archives. IIRC you didn't go into much technical detail as
t
18 matches
Mail list logo
