Proxymap tunning
in [Postfix]
|
From: Luciana Moreira on 1 Jul 2010 04:12 Hello guys, I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster dues to the great input I got in this list :) I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes equal to the maximum required during a burst situation. My question is: could any of these functions bellow happen in parallel? On smtpd process * -o smtpd_sender_restrictions=check_sender_access,proxy:mysql: ... On cleanup process * -o header_checks=proxy:mysql: ... On main.cf * smtpd_sender_login_maps = proxy:mysql:... From what I read on the documentation bellow, the cleanup process would start after the smtpd process, so I believe there should be no parallel processign happening there. Nevertheless, I could not find information on the smtpd_sender_login_maps and smtpd_sender_restrictions that could give me indications if they are processed sequentially or in parallel. http://www.postfix.org/OVERVIEW.html Any ideas? Luciana
From: Victor Duchovni on 1 Jul 2010 05:21 On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote: > Hello guys, > > I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster > dues to the great input I got in this list :) > > I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes equal > to the maximum required during a burst situation. My question is: could any > of these functions bellow happen in parallel? The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow, make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so complex that they can only be resolved via a "table scan". If you need to tune proxymap, something else is wrong, and you should fix that. -- Viktor.
From: Luciana Moreira on 1 Jul 2010 06:39 Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 10:12:38AM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote: > > >> Hello guys, >> >> I am working on tunning our postfix server which is already much faster >> dues to the great input I got in this list :) >> >> I now have to configure our proxymap to have the number of processes equal >> to the maximum required during a burst situation. My question is: could any >> of these functions bellow happen in parallel? >> > > The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow, > make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so > complex that they can only be resolved via a "table scan". > Is this also true for one single message? I know the cleanup server can process messages while smtpd is executing other tasks. But I expected the flow of a single message to be smtpd and then cleanup, i.e. for the same message we would not have parallel requests to cleanup and sender checks. Could you please confirm that? btw, mysql is not slow, it is just that we would like to avoid wasted memory allocation for processes that will be _always_ sitting there doing nothing since there are more processes assigned than actually needed. Another question also in regard to proxymap tuning: If I define less proxymap processes than what may be needed in a certain time period, will the postfix scheduler hold the request until a process is available or will there be an error returned to the function using mysql? Regards, Luciana > If you need to tune proxymap, something else is wrong, and you should > fix that. > >
From: Victor Duchovni on 1 Jul 2010 06:45 On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote: >> The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow, >> make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so >> complex that they can only be resolved via a "table scan". >> > Is this also true for one single message? > > I know the cleanup server can process messages while smtpd is executing > other tasks. But I expected the flow of a single message to be smtpd and > then cleanup, i.e. for the same message we would not have parallel requests > to cleanup and sender checks. This naive view is inaccurate. > btw, mysql is not slow, it is just that we would like to avoid wasted > memory allocation for processes that will be _always_ sitting there doing > nothing since there are more processes assigned than actually needed. You are misdirecting your efforts, and probably doing more harm than good. The operating system does a good job of managing idle memory pages, and the process count is small enough that you'd need extremely old hardware for this to be an issue. > Another question also in regard to proxymap tuning: If I define less > proxymap processes than what may be needed in a certain time period, will > the postfix scheduler hold the request until a process is available or will > there be an error returned to the function using mysql? Don't tune proxymap, it does not need tuning. -- Viktor.
From: Luciana Moreira on 1 Jul 2010 07:42 Thx a lot for the reply Victor, it clarified some of my doubts. From your response to my last question I am assuming the scheduler handles the proxymap process allocation and I don't need to care about possible errors. Just to clarify, you recommend to "not tune proxymap". Our system requirement is to always have at least 1 proxymap process ready for use at any given time. This means: 1) That I would leave the default value there (100). 2) 3 functions may need proxymap in parallel for each message 3) Postfix would be able to handle ~33 messages in parallel (respecting our requirement) 4) We would define 33 smtpd processes 5) Defining more smtpd processes will not result in an error but will not respect our system requirement. Defining less smtpd processes is definitely a "waste" of proxymaps (even though OS can handle it). Did I understand your valuable input right? :) Why do you believe I would be possible causing harm to the system, is there some side effect to the changes I am making which I am unaware of? Regards, Luciana Victor Duchovni wrote: > On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 12:39:22PM +0200, Luciana Moreira wrote: > > >>> The cleanup and SMTP servers can work in parallel. If mysql is slow, >>> make sure your tables are properly indexed, and queries are not so >>> complex that they can only be resolved via a "table scan". >>> >>> >> Is this also true for one single message? >> >> I know the cleanup server can process messages while smtpd is executing >> other tasks. But I expected the flow of a single message to be smtpd and >> then cleanup, i.e. for the same message we would not have parallel requests >> to cleanup and sender checks. >> > > This naive view is inaccurate. > > >> btw, mysql is not slow, it is just that we would like to avoid wasted >> memory allocation for processes that will be _always_ sitting there doing >> nothing since there are more processes assigned than actually needed. >> > > You are misdirecting your efforts, and probably doing more harm than good. > The operating system does a good job of managing idle memory pages, and > the process count is small enough that you'd need extremely old hardware > for this to be an issue. > > >> Another question also in regard to proxymap tuning: If I define less >> proxymap processes than what may be needed in a certain time period, will >> the postfix scheduler hold the request until a process is available or will >> there be an error returned to the function using mysql? >> > > Don't tune proxymap, it does not need tuning. > >
|
Pages: 1 Prev: - Re: Sending mails using multiple IPs' Next: Error 451 (Couldn't open temporary) Please Help |