Re: opendkim performance

From: Lukasz Ochoda <lochoda_at_endai.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 18:23:11 -0400

I am using package for FreeBSD.

But, actually I think opendkim works perfectly. Correct me if I am wrong,
but since opendkim is a milter, it works upfront of active queue, so my
issue with growing active queue is not related at all to opendkim???

I will still do some tests with new servers and fixed-sized pool. Also I
found that opendkim has some cache, that can be useful for me.


On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 5:13 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk_at_cloudmark.com>wrote:

> Do you build from source, or install from an RPM or ports tree?****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org [mailto:
> opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org] *On Behalf Of *Lukasz Ochoda
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:29 AM
>
> *To:* opendkim-users_at_lists.opendkim.org
> *Subject:* Re: opendkim performance****
>
> ** **
>
> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for you quick reply... I have not done anything yet... the problem
> is that I try to sign about 1000 messages per second... I can see big
> improvement after I switched from dkim proxy. OpenDKIM works great, but
> still can see some emails that are not signed on the fly... the active queue
> is still growing, but very slow which is great.****
>
> ** **
>
> I will try to work on this fixed-sized pool, any improvement is good for
> me...****
>
> ** **
>
> DNS is not an issue right now, because I do not verify signatures right
> now... just signing outgoing emails.****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks.****
>
> ** **
>
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk_at_cloudmark.com>
> wrote:****
>
> I should also point out that the vast majority of the latency in opendkim
> processing is very likely DNS delays. Thereís very little we can do in the
> source code to deal with that.****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org [mailto:
> opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org] *On Behalf Of *Murray S.
> Kucherawy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:14 AM****
>
>
> *To:* opendkim-users_at_lists.opendkim.org****
>
> *Subject:* RE: opendkim performance****
>
> ****
>
> Have you done any profiling to see where itís bottlenecking?****
>
>
> There are some libmilter build-time features that do things like restrict
> libmilter to a fixed-size worker pool rather than making one thread per
> client. I donít recall how much faster that gets it going, though.****
>
> ****
>
> Thereís an open item to improve the speed at which canonicalization occurs,
> which is where libopendkim spends most of its time. Iím hoping to do that
> for the next release.****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org [mailto:
> opendkim-users-bounce_at_lists.opendkim.org] *On Behalf Of *Lukasz Ochoda
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 31, 2011 11:01 AM
> *To:* opendkim-users_at_lists.opendkim.org
> *Subject:* opendkim performance****
>
> ****
>
> Hi All!****
>
> ****
>
> Is there any way to optimize opendkim to work with high performance
> systems/servers. For example, can I increase number of processes of opendkim
> or make it work faster and better? ****
>
>
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> -- ****
>
> *Lukasz Ochoda*****
>
> *Endai Worldwide <http://www.endai.com/>*****
>
> *MarketTraq Developer*****
>
> *Tel: 212-430-0808x113*****
>
> ** **
>



-- 
*Lukasz Ochoda
Endai Worldwide <http://www.endai.com/>
MarketTraq Developer
Tel: 212-430-0808x113
*
Received on Wed Aug 31 2011 - 22:23:25 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:19 PST