Re: Finding the Bottleneck (nearly there!)
Thought I'd mention one more thing that would be pretty important to know.
qmail is now sending up to 400-450 concurrent outgoing emails (not all the
time obviously, but easily goes up to that). Previously the maximum it
would go to would be around 50... max 100, especially when it had 20K odd
messages not preprocessed yet.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Lim" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Russell Coker" <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck (nearly there!)
> 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?
> So since mess has the content of the emails on it, then in theory would
> 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 ->
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 qmailq qmail 14 Jun 10 21:12 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
> 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
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact