[TriLUG] sendmail vs. postfix - was Re: stupid sendmail question?

[David Rasch]

On Thu, Jun 17, 2004 at 01:55:32PM -0400, Jon Carnes <jonc at nc.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> Not to brag or anything, but I have a site I setup two years ago using
> Sendmail, SpamAssassin, McAfee Anti-virus, and MailScanner which
> averages about 20 messages/second (the HW costs were around $2400 two
> years ago). 
> 
> Sendmail works like a champ on that system!
> 
> At the time I set that system up I did some stress testing using
> Sendmail and Postfix.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but at that
> time Sendmail considerably out performed Postfix at that level of
> traffic (using the same hardware/applications setup).
> 
> I was fairly shocked at the time that Postfix faired so poorly; but
> someone on the Mailscanner list pointed out that running a strace on
> sendmail and one on Postfix would showed that Postfix performed a
> massive number of processing steps to process a single message (as
> compared to Sendmail).  Looking at Postfix's architecture that makes
> sense.

People keep commenting about the processing steps in sendmail,  yet
qmail which I've found to be faster then sendmail in tests and
implementations.  Qmail has an architecture similar to that of postfix.
Though, I haven't tested with spam filtering, anti-virus, and other filters in
the middle.  

David
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://www.trilug.org/pipermail/trilug/attachments/20040617/e537d772/attachment.pgp>