Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.etla.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed1.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.082 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.84; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'allowed.': 0.07; 'counting': 0.09; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; 'mostly': 0.14; '-tkc': 0.16; 'erlang.': 0.16; 'finer': 0.16; 'internally': 0.16; 'language?': 0.16; 'mean,': 0.16; 'proxy,': 0.16; 'queuing': 0.16; 'received:10.50': 0.16; 'statistics,': 0.16; 'statistics.': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'passing': 0.19; 'possible,': 0.19; 'restrictions': 0.19; 'programming': 0.22; '(in': 0.22; 'aug': 0.22; 'gmbh': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'load': 0.23; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.23; 'server.': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'script': 0.25; 'permission': 0.26; 'second': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'gets': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'possibility': 0.29; 'tim': 0.29; 'est': 0.30; 'nature': 0.30; "i'm": 0.30; '(which': 0.31; 'chase': 0.31; 'text': 0.33; 'guess': 0.33; 'connection': 0.35; 'tool': 0.35; 'rate.': 0.36; 'done': 0.36; 'should': 0.36; 'two': 0.37; 'received:10': 0.37; 'depends': 0.38; 'fri': 0.38; 'handle': 0.38; 'little': 0.38; 'does': 0.39; 'volume': 0.39; 'simple,': 0.60; 'course': 0.61; 'simple': 0.61; "you're": 0.61; 'act': 0.63; 'guarantee': 0.63; 'information': 0.63; 'kind': 0.63; 'day.': 0.63; 'more': 0.64; '2000': 0.65; 'between': 0.67; 'gathering': 0.68; 'steady': 0.68; 'email,': 0.69; 'emails,': 0.69; 'mail.': 0.69; 'hour': 0.70; 'inline': 0.74; 'analysis': 0.75; 'day': 0.76; '260': 0.84; 'high,': 0.84; 'queued': 0.84; "they'd": 0.84; 'mails': 0.89; 'destination': 0.91; 'to:none': 0.92; '2013': 0.98 X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at ispconfig-mx01-ha03.globe.de Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 15:16:05 +0200 From: Schneider Organization: GLOBE Development GmbH User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: "python-list@python.org" Subject: Re: Python performance References: <51FB9F49.9040209@globe.de> <20130802075926.454bd391@bigbox.christie.dr> In-Reply-To: <20130802075926.454bd391@bigbox.christie.dr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 63 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1375449400 news.xs4all.nl 15980 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:52689 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:51806 On Fri 02 Aug 2013 02:59:26 PM CEST, Tim Chase wrote: > On 2013-08-02 14:00, Schneider wrote: >> I have to write a small SMTP-Relay script (+ some statistic infos) >> and I'm wondering, if this >> can be done in python (in terms of performance, of course not in >> terms of possibility ;) ). >> >> It has to handle around 2000 mails per hour for at least 8hours a >> day (which does not mean, that it is allowed not to respond the >> r est of the day. >> >> Can this be done? or should I better use some other programming >> language? My second choice would be erlang. > > I suspect it depends on a lot of factors: > > - will your network connection support that much traffic? (And an > ISP that will grant you permission to spew that volume of email?) yes, because we are the ISP. > - are these simple text emails, or are they large with lots of > attachments, inline images, PDFs, or whatever? any kind of mail. No restrictions allowed. > - are the statistics that you're gathering simple, or do they require > complex analysis of the documents passing through? very simple statistics, mostly counting and time statistics. > - is the load 8hr straight of spewing email, or is it bursty? If > it's bursty, you can internally queue them up when load gets high, > delivering them from that queue when load diminishes. Given the > store-and-forward nature of email, there's no guarantee that if > you spewe d them at ~33/minute (that/s a little faster than one > every two seconds), they'd arrive at their destination any faster > than if you'd queued them up and sent them at a more steady rate. I guess it's bursty. I don't have finer granulated information about their time distribution. > -tkc > Queuing the mails for a while is not possible, because the tool should sit between the client and smtp-server. It should act as proxy, not as server. bg, Johannes -- GLOBE Development GmbH Königsberger Strasse 260 48157 MünsterGLOBE Development GmbH Königsberger Strasse 260 48157 Münster 0251/5205 390