Re: Performance of SNDDST vs QtmmSendMail -- MIDRANGE-L

× The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.

I just did a test.  I sent 400 short messages to my ISP Email account from a
couple of CL programs.  200 with SNDDST, then afterwards, 200 with David
Leland's SNDEMAIL command (which uses QtmmSendMail).

My 170-2290 took seven (7) minutes to complete the SNDDST distribution.  It
took six (6) minutes to complete the SNDEMAIL distribution.

During the SNDDST distribution the CPU was running at about 50%.  But during
the SNDEMAIL distribution the CPU was running at about 70%.

I wasn't doing any other work on the box at the time - just monitoring CPU
usage (WRKACTJOB) and active SMTP connections (WRKTCPSTS).

So, although the elapsed time somewhat favored SNDEMAIL, I suspect the
actual CPU time was very close for both commands.

Nathan.


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.