>>> Your logic is flawed, Dave. One instance of sendmail does the same job
>>> as 20 instances of qmail-smtp.
>
>> And you say Dave's logic is flawed?
>> How can you possibly support this statement?
>
>Assuming sender is sending 20 messages to recipient:
We're not talking senders, we're talking recipients.
case 1: receiver runs sendmail, and forks either 20 copies.
Since sendmail is large and monolithic, you have 20 copies vying
not only for CPU, but paging, as well as all trying to do locking, etc.
case 2: receiver runs qmail, and 20 copies of qmail-smtpd get spawned.
Since qmail is small and modular, far less real (and virtual) memory
get used. Mail messages are passed on through the system and those
20 small programs quickly die off. The 20 messages are processed
as by some number of qmail-locals -- however many as needed according
to whatever the current demand is.
The "smaller amount of RAM" is not made up. There's a long line of
qmail users who will tell you that qmail uses far less ram and resources
than sendmail. The only thing that is an issue for big sites is disk
bandwidth. (this is a specific goal of VMailer that he wants to
improve upon).
--Dave
References:
|
|
