<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.7" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Day 28 of 60: Instrumenting Sendmail queue file creation (pt 4)</title>
	<link>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/</link>
	<description>It'll all be over in 60 days</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 02:22:49 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Try before you buy &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Day 31 of 60: Queues and connections</title>
		<link>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-50</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:42:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-50</guid>
					<description>[...] Back on day 28 I looked at the effect of multiple queue directories with concurrent senders. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Back on day 28 I looked at the effect of multiple queue directories with concurrent senders. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Try before you buy &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Day 30 of 60: What are the single queue directory bottlenecks? (pt 2)</title>
		<link>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-48</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:46:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-48</guid>
					<description>[...] As expected, given the results from yesterday this shows the dramatic difference when using multiple queue directories. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] As expected, given the results from yesterday this shows the dramatic difference when using multiple queue directories. [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: nik</title>
		<link>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-46</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 08:41:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-46</guid>
					<description>Heh.  It's on the TODO list, as I'd like to get some experience with ZFS.  Not sure that I'll get the chance to do so in the next 30 days though.  A lot depends on how rapidly I can get through this round of data gathering and reporting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Heh.  It&#8217;s on the TODO list, as I&#8217;d like to get some experience with ZFS.  Not sure that I&#8217;ll get the chance to do so in the next 30 days though.  A lot depends on how rapidly I can get through this round of data gathering and reporting.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Boyd Adamson</title>
		<link>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-45</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 02:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://jc.ngo.org.uk/blog/2006/08/06/day-28-of-60-instrumenting-sendmail-queue-file-creation-pt-4/#comment-45</guid>
					<description>Since you clearly need yet another variable in the mix, I'd be interested in what difference ufs vs zfs makes on the queue performance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Since you clearly need yet another variable in the mix, I&#8217;d be interested in what difference ufs vs zfs makes on the queue performance.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
