From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <201102181445.41877.dexen.devries@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:28:12 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Modern development language for Plan 9, WAS: Re: RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely Topicbox-Message-UUID: b12bfcec-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2011/2/18 ron minnich : > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM, erik quanstrom w= rote: > >> wire speed is generally considered "good enough". =C2=A0=E2=98=BA Touche. > depends on field of use. In my biz everyone hits wire speed, and the > question from there is: how much of the CPU are you eating to get that > wire speed. > > It's a very tangled thicked. Indeed. It's very difficult to do SMTP anywhere close to wire speed with the protocol-required persistent I/O overhead, the typical content analysis stuff that ISPs, ESPs, and large content providers tend to want to do. Add on RBL lookups, crypto-related stuff (e.g. DKIM), etc., it's just not really feasible on commodity hardware. (Of course, these days, operating systems and RAID controllers with battery-backed caches make it impossible to guarantee that your message ever ends up in persistent storage, but that's still a small part of the processing overhead for a given message.) --dho > ron > >