--- On Wed, 1/12/11, Drav Sloan <holborn-exim@???> wrote:
> From: Drav Sloan <holborn-exim@???>
> Subject: Re: [exim] exim 4.7 slowness
> To: "CauBa" <cauba_no_1@???>
> Cc: "Drav Sloan" <holborn-exim@???>, exim-users@???
> Received: Wednesday, January 12, 2011, 4:19 AM
> CauBa wrote:
> > Thanks for your suggestion Drav,
> > My server will take on the burden of receiving
> messages quickly and
> > not cause a delay on the sending side so that is not
> an option.
>
> There shouldn't be that noticeable a difference to the
> sender from
> a message being delivered directly to it being queued; they
> will
> see the confirmation of the acceptance of the message at
> exactly
> the same time.
>
hmm, I thought confirmation would be given only if it has successfully queued (in the case of queue only) or successfully delivered, otherwise.
> > It was queueing and dequeueing decently with 4.69
>
> This may be true, but I did wonder how long a down time
> there was
> between the version swaps? If this mail server is sole
> host, then
> the "internet" would have a backlog of messages that would
> swarm
> in once the server returned. queue_only in those situations
> tends
> to make for a slow server until it can catch up with the
> backlog.
Downtime was kept to a minimal.
New version installed in its own prefix directory and a exim symlink was toggled. exim db emptied. exim restart. Max downtime was 2 minutes.
I have gone back and forth between the 2 versions a number of time to be sure and it is just that. 4.73 is noticeably slower.
I am now running a patched 4.69 and it is working well.
>
> The other thing you may want to do is trash your old
> temporary
> "retry" databases - sometimes that can cause large delays
> in
> "loaded" situations.
>
Yep. done that each time.
> If it's none of the above, good luck tracking the problem
> down,
> maybe a diagnoses with an exim -d -bh would help point to
> where
> the delay is (maybe DNS lookups, SQL lookups, ldap lookups
> etc etc)!
>
I thought about DNS as well so ended up trying manual routing with HOST IPs. Didn't help
If time permits, I will test other things. I don't like not having the option to use the latest and greatest.
