At 2:28 PM +0200 2004-07-13, Fil wrote:
for 152991 recips, completed in 31782.241 secondsHow does this compare to a normal, non-VERPed delivery for this list?
grep -E "1..... recips" logs/smtp
May 27 16:43:46 2004 (440) <20040527135407.74A5F368143@alan.rezo.net> smtp for 151942 recips, completed in 1231.438 seconds
1231.438/151942 = 0.0081046 seconds per recipient (average)Jun 30 15:39:26 2004 (435) <20040630132741.F1A0836811C@alan.rezo.net> smtp for 152717 recips, completed in 428.891 seconds
428.891/152717 = 0.0028084 seconds per recipient (average)Jul 13 02:05:22 2004 (435) <20040712150834.DCA153680BD@alan.rezo.net> smtp for 152991 recips, completed in 31782.241 seconds
31782.241/152991 = 0.2077392 seconds per recipient (average)
So, on average, you're taking somewhere close to 25-75 times as long, if you enable VERP for the entire list. Ouch!
I ask because Chuq Von Rospach has done some calculations on what should theoretically happen to your performance if you enable VERP, but I don't know of anyone who has actually timed the performance difference on large lists.
Usually the sending (mailman to postfix to 90% of users) takes a bit more than two hours ; yesterday it took about 6 hours. But more importantly, the Mailman -> postfix thing took 5 hours instead of ~ 15 minutes.
I will definitely update the VERP performance entry in the FAQ to reference your experience.
-- Brad Knowles, <brad.knowles@skynet.be>
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania
Assembly to the Governor, November 11, 1755SAGE member since 1995. See <http://www.sage.org/> for more info.