Back to Sendmail?
-
Hi Last week we changed our linux/sendmail server to Exchange 5.5. We thought it would give us more flexibility and control. Big mistake. :mad: We're running it on a Pentium III 866Mhz (2 processors), 512Mb RAM and 80 Gb in 4 HDs and it just takes one hour to process about 100 emails (even after performance optimizer). So, I reinstalled my old RedHat linux on a 486/64Mb RAM and ran the same test: it was about 15 minutes. Exchange seems to be a big monster that you only need if you really want to use all its features. But for a simple email server... Go back to linux seems to be a nice idea... :) Am I wrong? Regards, Wanderley
Good God... 15 min to process 100 emails. What the heck are you sending? I'm no Exchange guru, but something smells. We benchmark the email server that comes with our Dundas TCP/IP 4.0 library, and we've had it up over 3 Million pieces of email an hour. David
-
Hi Last week we changed our linux/sendmail server to Exchange 5.5. We thought it would give us more flexibility and control. Big mistake. :mad: We're running it on a Pentium III 866Mhz (2 processors), 512Mb RAM and 80 Gb in 4 HDs and it just takes one hour to process about 100 emails (even after performance optimizer). So, I reinstalled my old RedHat linux on a 486/64Mb RAM and ran the same test: it was about 15 minutes. Exchange seems to be a big monster that you only need if you really want to use all its features. But for a simple email server... Go back to linux seems to be a nice idea... :) Am I wrong? Regards, Wanderley
I'm trying to summarize: Exchange - 1 hour to process 100 emails; Linux - 15 minutes to process 100 emails; Hm... Don't they both... suck? ;P I guess with such processing speed you can hire a good secretary instead of investing into expensive 486 with 64 Mb RAM, not to say about Pentium III stuff :-D But seriously, I agree about Exchange. I am amazed that Microsoft is not doing anything about this software. It's so heavy and inefficient. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
Good God... 15 min to process 100 emails. What the heck are you sending? I'm no Exchange guru, but something smells. We benchmark the email server that comes with our Dundas TCP/IP 4.0 library, and we've had it up over 3 Million pieces of email an hour. David
Now I realize why I am getting so many garbage e-mail messages daily. Somebody is benchmarking email server with 3 million pieces :rolleyes: Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
-
Good God... 15 min to process 100 emails. What the heck are you sending? I'm no Exchange guru, but something smells. We benchmark the email server that comes with our Dundas TCP/IP 4.0 library, and we've had it up over 3 Million pieces of email an hour. David
Hey Dave, that was 1 hour for 100 emails with Exchange. Linux took 15 minutes (which is still quite long). Even receiving emails with Outlook from exchange takes forever. Plus once the exchange stuff is installed on Outlook it looses its multi-threaded ability. So it takes me usually 15 minutes to receive my email each morning.
-
I'm trying to summarize: Exchange - 1 hour to process 100 emails; Linux - 15 minutes to process 100 emails; Hm... Don't they both... suck? ;P I guess with such processing speed you can hire a good secretary instead of investing into expensive 486 with 64 Mb RAM, not to say about Pentium III stuff :-D But seriously, I agree about Exchange. I am amazed that Microsoft is not doing anything about this software. It's so heavy and inefficient. Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
I am not an Exchange fan, but let us be fair to it. It is not a speed devil, but I happened to send a pretty big amount of emails through Exchange server - approximately 100 90K pieces to ~50 people, i.e., about 5000 emails totalling in 450Mbytes, and it took 10-15 minutes. Our company of 500+ people uses Exchange heavily, and never experienced such performance problem. 100 emails per hour? Sound like a sabotage ;) Yuri
-
Now I realize why I am getting so many garbage e-mail messages daily. Somebody is benchmarking email server with 3 million pieces :rolleyes: Vagif Abilov COM+/ATL/MFC Developer Oslo, Norway
Hey Vagif, Yeah, I hear you. Interestingly enough it seems like all the guys who write Spam software seem to use Dart's stuff... never quite figured that out. I guess it is more familiar to VB developers. So, the tons of garbage emails your receive are probably disproportionately brought to you by... our esteemed competitors. Performance has always been extremely important to us, and yes, we do sometimes go overboard in pursuit of the 'ultimate' (please forgive me :)) goal. Like most developers, sluggish software drives us crazy. David (Sweltering in this Australian-like heat)
-
Hey Vagif, Yeah, I hear you. Interestingly enough it seems like all the guys who write Spam software seem to use Dart's stuff... never quite figured that out. I guess it is more familiar to VB developers. So, the tons of garbage emails your receive are probably disproportionately brought to you by... our esteemed competitors. Performance has always been extremely important to us, and yes, we do sometimes go overboard in pursuit of the 'ultimate' (please forgive me :)) goal. Like most developers, sluggish software drives us crazy. David (Sweltering in this Australian-like heat)
>>(Sweltering in this Australian-like heat) You guys still suffering though 25+ degrees over there? Relax - winter will be back soon :P cheers, Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
-
Hi Last week we changed our linux/sendmail server to Exchange 5.5. We thought it would give us more flexibility and control. Big mistake. :mad: We're running it on a Pentium III 866Mhz (2 processors), 512Mb RAM and 80 Gb in 4 HDs and it just takes one hour to process about 100 emails (even after performance optimizer). So, I reinstalled my old RedHat linux on a 486/64Mb RAM and ran the same test: it was about 15 minutes. Exchange seems to be a big monster that you only need if you really want to use all its features. But for a simple email server... Go back to linux seems to be a nice idea... :) Am I wrong? Regards, Wanderley
Sorry, I mistyped the number of emails - it's 1000 not 100. But it still sucks, uh? :) The problem is how Exchange handles its queue (I think). After sending some messages, it starts to take a looooooong time just to queue each new one (the message is personalized report with a 100KB PDF file attached and it's already done before sending). Hey, it's NOT spam. We sell these reports. ;P I am no Exchange guru too and maybe I'm missing something really obvious here. But sendmail is so easy to install and maintain. :-) Regards, Wanderley
-
Hi Last week we changed our linux/sendmail server to Exchange 5.5. We thought it would give us more flexibility and control. Big mistake. :mad: We're running it on a Pentium III 866Mhz (2 processors), 512Mb RAM and 80 Gb in 4 HDs and it just takes one hour to process about 100 emails (even after performance optimizer). So, I reinstalled my old RedHat linux on a 486/64Mb RAM and ran the same test: it was about 15 minutes. Exchange seems to be a big monster that you only need if you really want to use all its features. But for a simple email server... Go back to linux seems to be a nice idea... :) Am I wrong? Regards, Wanderley
What the hell? My email server on a 486/66 processes hundreds of emails in seconds. Something is seriously wrong. Or you're making all this up, and have no idea what the real times of such things should be. I'm betting on that.
-
Sorry, I mistyped the number of emails - it's 1000 not 100. But it still sucks, uh? :) The problem is how Exchange handles its queue (I think). After sending some messages, it starts to take a looooooong time just to queue each new one (the message is personalized report with a 100KB PDF file attached and it's already done before sending). Hey, it's NOT spam. We sell these reports. ;P I am no Exchange guru too and maybe I'm missing something really obvious here. But sendmail is so easy to install and maintain. :-) Regards, Wanderley
Uhh... let's look at this. 1000 messages with 100KB PDF files. Now, binary attachements in email must be MIME encoded, which increases their size by about 50%, so you can assume 150KB of text x 1000 messages = 150 megabytes. That's a lot to process on a 486. Hell, data transfer time alone on a T1 would be like 10 minutes, not counting processing time and slower links. If you had even *ONE* client with a dialup or fairly saturated connection, then it would take more than 15 minutes to complete. Even so, Exchange's strength is not it's internet mail, but it's in it's client/server mail internal to networks. Further, why would you use Exchange 5.5 when Exchange 2000 is so much better?