Sloan wrote:
Sandy Drobic wrote:
What were the features that differed the most in implementation or performance?
Our look at qmail was some years ago so it's getting a bit fuzzy now. ISTR that qmail seemed to be full of gratuitous differences in the interface with no tangible benefit. I won't deny that it seemed smaller and cleaner than sendmail, but the message store by inode was one deal breaker, as I mentioned. Also ISTR that we would have needed thousands of alias files to do what we were doing in sendmail.
Agreed, that is a bit awkward if you need to be able to scale very high.
I would also like to see some test results done on the same hardware and the same base of testmails.
Well, from memory (this was several years ago) we had 2 identical linux test machines, rather modest, hp desktop class hardware as I remember. One was running sendmail, the other postfix, default configs. We fed them both with a mail spool of a few thousand messages and the difference was significant. The postfix box finished processing and delivering the messages in a few minutes. At this point, the sendmail box was thrashing, with a load average around 40. It finally finished about half an hour later.
That one test settled the postfix-vs-sendmail debate for me.
I assume that you configured both systems with reasonable defaults? Transfer over SMTP is indeed blazing fast with Postfix. I had to switch off my main server over night once. The queue on the replacement drained almost immediately (a few hundred mails only) when the primary came online again. Although the mails then sat in the active queue of the primary waiting to be scanned by amavisd-new. (^-^) -- Sandy List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org