Vincent Renardias <vincent@???> writes:
> I haven't made a "scientific comparison" between exim & qmail, but only
> tested both on the same hardware with equivalent workload...
> In my experience, both handle the load pretty well, although it seems like
> qmail needs slightly more CPU time than exim.
This is understandable - in the qmail paradigm, a fork/exec is cheap.
> Both have very similar
> memory requirements, although exim seems to do a better job when the
> machine is very loaded and short on memory.
Thank modern virtual memory systems for that; as you're using only one
binary, the text portion oonly gets loaded once, leading to (slightly)
reduced memory usage. With qmail's 6+ daemons and assistants, this
would probably be larger (haven't checked - they might be small enough
to not matter).
> My main problem with qmail (which made me switch to exim) is that it's not
> conservative w.r.t. bandwidth; ie: if you host a mailing-list where 20
> users are subscribed from the same remote host, qmail will open 20 SMTP
> connections to the remote host, while exim will use only 1 SMTP
> connection.
This is a highly debatable point, which I have yet to see resolved
satisfactorily.
--
"Remember the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules" -- WoID
--
*** Exim information can be found at
http://www.exim.org/ ***
