On Oct 30, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Noel Jones wrote:
> At 10:04 AM 10/30/2006, Donald Roeber wrote:
>>> transport table entries are unavoidable.
>> That's correct. Previous messages have indicated that there is a
>> fairly substantial penalty for doing this though, and I want to make
>> sure I'm doing the right thing before I grind my server into little
>> itty bitty bits.
> Per-recipient transport entries are what you require. The
> transport_maps lookup is latency-sensitive, meaning that if the
> lookup is delayed, it will affect all mail. But the lookups are
> performed regardless, and have minimal impact on mail flow with a
> properly functioning table.
That's true, I hadn't thought of it that way. Thanks.
> The moral of the story is to use local cdb or hash tables for
> transport_maps when possible. If you prefer to/must use sql or
> ldap, make sure those services respond quickly and reliably.
We have to use LDAP, but we've installed a slave LDAP server on the
host, solely for performance reasons. This service will be in
testing for awhile, because we need to profile the performance to
make sure we've tuned the system and applications correctly.
> Maybe put it another way... There is a penalty for slow
> transport_maps lookups. There is no additional penalty for using
> per-recipient transport_maps entries.