Re: Finding the Bottleneck (nearly there!)
Hi,
Something VERY interested has occurred.
I kept playing around with the /var/qmail/queue directory, to see how I
could optimize it.
I also saw in some qmail-* manpage that mess & pid directories, and todo &
intd directories have to be on the same drive (or was that partition?
nevermind)
So since mess has the content of the emails on it, then in theory would be
the most "hard" on the disk (larger files than any other directories), I
left mess and pid on disk 2, and kept todo and intd onto disk 1.
sh-2.05# ls -al
total 36
drwxr-x--- 9 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:12 .
drwxr-xr-x 7 root root 4096 Jun 10 21:11 ..
drwx------ 2 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 11 23:46 bounce
drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:11 info
drwx------ 25 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:11 intd
drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:11 local
drwxr-x--- 2 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:11 lock
lrwxrwxrwx 1 qmailq qmail 15 Jun 10 21:12 mess ->
/mnt/disk2/mess
lrwxrwxrwx 1 qmailq qmail 14 Jun 10 21:12 pid ->
/mnt/disk2/pid
drwx------ 25 qmails qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:11 remote
drwxr-x--- 25 qmailq qmail 4096 Jun 10 21:11 todo
Surprise suprise... HUGE PERFORMANCE INCREASE!!!
I mean double or even triple the thoughtput!
sh-2.05# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 28617
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 0
NO unprocessed messages (compared to having 20-50K) and only 28K messages
in queue (compared to 500K).
The mail volume has not changed since before, so besides playing with
hdparm a bit previously, nothing else has been changed.
I have NO idea why putting the entire queue on disk 2, compared to just
putting mess and pid on disk 2, would have SUCH a huge difference. It
baffles me.
Anyway... I have only observed this huge performance increase for a day,
so I will monitor this for another day and see if it keeps this up. I'll
post the findings tomorrow.
Who could've guessed? It makes SOME sense... but double to triple the
performance?
Sincerely,
Jason
Reply to: