Other reader's are encouraged to test this out, too.
2019-09-20 - hschneider, Admin
Cookie Disclaimer: This forum uses only essential, anonymous session cookies (xmailforum*), nothing to be scared of.
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| XMail Forum > XMail Queue Manager > XQM 1.46 Performance |
| Posted by: Bhozar Jan 20 2004, 11:26 AM |
| Though you might be interested in how long it took the new versions to return the list of frozen messages that have been building up on our mail server for the past few months. Sending: 0 Resending: 0 Frozen: 25943 QSize: 728.16MB QTime: 2606 |
| Posted by: hschneider Jan 20 2004, 11:29 AM |
| Thanks! How does that differ from the previous version? Requerying should be significantly faster ... Do you query by Agent or directly on the server ? |
| Posted by: Bhozar Jan 20 2004, 12:51 PM |
| Its faster as far as I can tell. I tried it on a different server with a list of only a few hundred messages and it was much quicker than before. I am using the XQM on Windows XP and the Agent on Windows 2003. |
| Posted by: hschneider Jan 20 2004, 01:11 PM |
| Fine .. I'll check some alternative methods how to handle such large data (0.75 GB!) in future releases. |
| Posted by: hschneider Jan 20 2004, 01:13 PM |
| BTW: Tweaking your filesystem cache should improve your server's and XMail's performance as well ... |
| Posted by: hschneider Jan 20 2004, 01:15 PM |
| Evaluate this one: http://www.oo-software.com/en/products/ooccpro/index.html |
| Posted by: Bhozar Jan 20 2004, 01:57 PM |
| To be honest I dont know if it will make much difference as the hard drive partition with XMail on is a RAID, the system itself is 2.4ghz P4 with 1GB Dual DDR memory. Only things running on this machine is WAI, Spam Assassin and XMail. That massive amount of data is the frozen files and undeliverable email since before December on our newletter machine. Thats very unusual to get so much. Most it usualy gets to is 5-6 thousand messages frozen. |
| Posted by: hschneider Jan 20 2004, 02:04 PM |
| I see .. anyway - would be nice, if you could test this one on a large queue: http://xmail.marketmix.com/preview/XQMAgentWin_Install.exe |
| Posted by: Bhozar Jan 20 2004, 02:52 PM |
| Okay, I will let my queue grow a bit, test with the current version I have then do the same with the new version in this thread. |
| Posted by: hschneider Jan 20 2004, 04:26 PM |
| Thanks! I'm very curious Other reader's are encouraged to test this out, too. |
| Posted by: Bhozar Feb 9 2004, 03:45 PM |
| Okay, I have let the queue grow since I last posted in this thread. Here are the results. Old version: Sending: 0 Resending: 0 Frozen: 38107 QSize: 960.63MB QTime: 3402 New version: Sending: 0 Resending: 0 Frozen: 38107 QSize: 960.63MB QTime: 3143 |
| Posted by: Bhozar Feb 9 2004, 04:03 PM |
| Ignore that last message. I havent tested the new version yet. I had installed it on the wrong service. I will report back the results soon though. |
| Posted by: Bhozar Feb 10 2004, 10:44 AM |
| New version: Sending: 0 Resending: 0 Frozen: 38107 QSize: 960.63MB QTime: 3142 I guess I did test with the newer version after all. The time is almost exactly the same as when I tried it yesterday. I havent cleared out the spool on this server so if you want me to test it again feel free to ask. |
| Posted by: hschneider Feb 10 2004, 01:07 PM |
| OK .. thanks a lot! |
| Posted by: ttoews Feb 14 2004, 02:43 AM | ||
No thanks. 38K frozen messages?!?!? I have 4 right now. I do not plan on getting that many emails. Just curious. How long does it take if you run XQM on the email server system? Via RDP/Terminal Server. Other than pinning the CPU usage to 100% for quite a while. Which is quite understandable why you wouldn't want to do this on the server. |
| Posted by: hschneider Feb 14 2004, 08:03 AM |
| You only have a slight speed gain, if you run it directly on the server. It uses the same engine like the Agent. The only advantage ist, that you do not need to transfer data to the GUI client at the end of the query. The CPU is only stressed that much on the very first query, caused by excessive file system access. Afther that most things are cached ... |
| Posted by: atomant Feb 14 2004, 11:03 AM |
| More performance info: Sending: 0 Resending: 0 Frozen: 6 QSize: 0.03 MB QTime: 103 sec |
| Posted by: Bhozar Feb 17 2004, 03:13 PM |
| I havent tried. I dont fancy pushing the CPU to 100% on a live email server to test it. |
| Posted by: hschneider Feb 17 2004, 03:21 PM |
| It doesn't stress the CPU as much as the Agent. No need to test it - the results will be nearly the same. |
| Posted by: Bhozar Feb 18 2004, 10:55 AM |
| I decided to try it out anyway. v1.46 direct on the server gave these results: Sending: 0 Resending: 0 Frozen: 50028 QSize: 1161.69 MB QTime: 3628 sec Notice my queue size is larger than it was before at over 50k frozen messages. |
| Posted by: atomant Feb 18 2004, 10:58 AM |
UUaaooo, this is a lot frozen messages. Don't you clean it once a while?  |
| Posted by: Bhozar Feb 23 2004, 12:03 PM |
| I kept them on purpose to test out the performance of XQM. I emptied them out after doing that last test. |