1<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"
2        "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
3
4<html>
5
6<head>
7
8<title>Postfix Bottleneck Analysis</title>
9
10<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
11
12</head>
13
14<body>
15
16<h1><img src="postfix-logo.jpg" width="203" height="98" ALT="">Postfix Bottleneck Analysis</h1>
17
18<hr>
19
20<h2>Purpose of this document </h2>
21
22<p> This document is an introduction to Postfix queue congestion analysis.
23It explains how the qshape(1) program can help to track down the
24reason for queue congestion.  qshape(1) is bundled with Postfix
252.1 and later source code, under the "auxiliary" directory. This
26document describes qshape(1) as bundled with Postfix 2.4.  </p>
27
28<p> This document covers the following topics: </p>
29
30<ul>
31
32<li><a href="#qshape">Introducing the qshape tool</a>
33
34<li><a href="#trouble_shooting">Trouble shooting with qshape</a> 
35
36<li><a href="#healthy">Example 1: Healthy queue</a>
37
38<li><a href="#dictionary_bounce">Example 2: Deferred queue full of
39dictionary attack bounces</a></li>
40
41<li><a href="#active_congestion">Example 3: Congestion in the active
42queue</a></li>
43
44<li><a href="#backlog">Example 4: High volume destination backlog</a>
45
46<li><a href="#queues">Postfix queue directories</a>
47
48<ul>
49
50<li> <a href="#maildrop_queue"> The "maildrop" queue </a>
51
52<li> <a href="#hold_queue"> The "hold" queue </a>
53
54<li> <a href="#incoming_queue"> The "incoming" queue </a>
55
56<li> <a href="#active_queue"> The "active" queue </a>
57
58<li> <a href="#deferred_queue"> The "deferred" queue </a>
59
60</ul>
61
62<li><a href="#credits">Credits</a>
63
64</ul>
65
66<h2><a name="qshape">Introducing the qshape tool</a></h2>
67
68<p> When mail is draining slowly or the queue is unexpectedly large,
69run qshape(1) as the super-user (root) to help zero in on the problem.
70The qshape(1) program displays a tabular view of the Postfix queue
71contents.  </p>
72
73<ul>
74
75<li> <p> On the horizontal axis, it displays the queue age with
76fine granularity for recent messages and (geometrically) less fine
77granularity for older messages.  </p>
78
79<li> <p> The vertical axis displays the destination (or with the
80"-s" switch the sender) domain. Domains with the most messages are
81listed first. </p>
82
83</ul>
84
85<p> For example, in the output below we see the top 10 lines of
86the (mostly forged) sender domain distribution for captured spam
87in the "hold" queue: </p>
88
89<blockquote>
90<pre>
91$ qshape -s hold | head
92                         T  5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
93                 TOTAL 486  0  0  1  0  0   2   4  20   40   419
94             yahoo.com  14  0  0  1  0  0   0   0   1    0    12
95  extremepricecuts.net  13  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   2    0    11
96        ms35.hinet.net  12  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    1    11
97      winnersdaily.net  12  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   2    0    10
98           hotmail.com  11  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    1    10
99           worldnet.fr   6  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    0     6
100        ms41.hinet.net   6  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    0     6
101                osn.de   5  0  0  0  0  0   1   0   0    0     4
102</pre>
103</blockquote>
104
105<ul>
106
107<li> <p> The "T" column shows the total (in this case sender) count
108for each domain.  The columns with numbers above them, show counts
109for messages aged fewer than that many minutes, but not younger
110than the age limit for the previous column.  The row labeled "TOTAL"
111shows the total count for all domains. </p>
112
113<li> <p> In this example, there are 14 messages allegedly from
114yahoo.com, 1 between 10 and 20 minutes old, 1 between 320 and 640
115minutes old and 12 older than 1280 minutes (1440 minutes in a day).
116</p>
117
118</ul>
119
120<p> When the output is a terminal intermediate results showing the top 20
121domains (-n option) are displayed after every 1000 messages (-N option)
122and the final output also shows only the top 20 domains. This makes
123qshape useful even when the deferred queue is very large and it may
124otherwise take prohibitively long to read the entire deferred queue. </p>
125
126<p> By default, qshape shows statistics for the union of both the
127incoming and active queues which are the most relevant queues to
128look at when analyzing performance. </p>
129
130<p> One can request an alternate list of queues: </p>
131
132<blockquote>
133<pre>
134$ qshape deferred
135$ qshape incoming active deferred
136</pre>
137</blockquote>
138
139<p> this will show the age distribution of the deferred queue or
140the union of the incoming active and deferred queues. </p>
141
142<p> Command line options control the number of display "buckets",
143the age limit for the smallest bucket, display of parent domain
144counts and so on. The "-h" option outputs a summary of the available
145switches. </p>
146
147<h2><a name="trouble_shooting">Trouble shooting with qshape</a>
148</h2>
149
150<p> Large numbers in the qshape output represent a large number of
151messages that are destined to (or alleged to come from) a particular
152domain.  It should be possible to tell at a glance which domains
153dominate the queue sender or recipient counts, approximately when
154a burst of mail started, and when it stopped. </p>
155
156<p> The problem destinations or sender domains appear near the top
157left corner of the output table. Remember that the active queue
158can accommodate up to 20000 ($qmgr_message_active_limit) messages.
159To check whether this limit has been reached, use: </p>
160
161<blockquote>
162<pre>
163$ qshape -s active       <i>(show sender statistics)</i>
164</pre>
165</blockquote>
166
167<p> If the total sender count is below 20000 the active queue is
168not yet saturated, any high volume sender domains show near the
169top of the output.
170
171<p> With oqmgr(8) the active queue is also limited to at most 20000
172recipient addresses ($qmgr_message_recipient_limit). To check for
173exhaustion of this limit use: </p>
174
175<blockquote>
176<pre>
177$ qshape active          <i>(show recipient statistics)</i>
178</pre>
179</blockquote>
180
181<p> Having found the high volume domains, it is often useful to
182search the logs for recent messages pertaining to the domains in
183question. </p>
184
185<blockquote>
186<pre>
187# Find deliveries to example.com
188#
189$ tail -10000 /var/log/maillog |
190        egrep -i ': to=&lt;.*@example\.com&gt;,' |
191        less
192
193# Find messages from example.com
194#
195$ tail -10000 /var/log/maillog |
196        egrep -i ': from=&lt;.*@example\.com&gt;,' |
197        less
198</pre>
199</blockquote>
200
201<p> You may want to drill in on some specific queue ids: </p>
202
203<blockquote>
204<pre>
205# Find all messages for a specific queue id.
206#
207$ tail -10000 /var/log/maillog | egrep ': 2B2173FF68: '
208</pre>
209</blockquote>
210
211<p> Also look for queue manager warning messages in the log. These
212warnings can suggest strategies to reduce congestion. </p>
213
214<blockquote>
215<pre>
216$ egrep 'qmgr.*(panic|fatal|error|warning):' /var/log/maillog
217</pre>
218</blockquote>
219
220<p> When all else fails try the Postfix mailing list for help, but
221please don't forget to include the top 10 or 20 lines of qshape(1)
222output.  </p>
223
224<h2><a name="healthy">Example 1: Healthy queue</a></h2>
225
226<p> When looking at just the incoming and active queues, under
227normal conditions (no congestion) the incoming and active queues
228are nearly empty. Mail leaves the system almost as quickly as it
229comes in or is deferred without congestion in the active queue.
230</p>
231
232<blockquote>
233<pre>
234$ qshape        <i>(show incoming and active queue status)</i>
235
236                 T  5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
237          TOTAL  5  0  0  0  1  0   0   0   1    1     2
238  meri.uwasa.fi  5  0  0  0  1  0   0   0   1    1     2
239</pre>
240</blockquote>
241
242<p> If one looks at the two queues separately, the incoming queue
243is empty or perhaps briefly has one or two messages, while the
244active queue holds more messages and for a somewhat longer time:
245</p>
246
247<blockquote>
248<pre>
249$ qshape incoming
250
251                 T  5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
252          TOTAL  0  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    0     0
253
254$ qshape active
255
256                 T  5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
257          TOTAL  5  0  0  0  1  0   0   0   1    1     2
258  meri.uwasa.fi  5  0  0  0  1  0   0   0   1    1     2
259</pre>
260</blockquote>
261
262<h2><a name="dictionary_bounce">Example 2: Deferred queue full of
263dictionary attack bounces</a></h2>
264
265<p> This is from a server where recipient validation is not yet
266available for some of the hosted domains. Dictionary attacks on
267the unvalidated domains result in bounce backscatter. The bounces
268dominate the queue, but with proper tuning they do not saturate the
269incoming or active queues. The high volume of deferred mail is not
270a direct cause for alarm. </p>
271
272<blockquote>
273<pre>
274$ qshape deferred | head
275
276                         T  5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
277                TOTAL 2234  4  2  5  9 31  57 108 201  464  1353
278  heyhihellothere.com  207  0  0  1  1  6   6   8  25   68    92
279  pleazerzoneprod.com  105  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   5   44    56
280       groups.msn.com   63  2  1  2  4  4  14  14  14    8     0
281    orion.toppoint.de   49  0  0  0  1  0   2   4   3   16    23
282          kali.com.cn   46  0  0  0  0  1   0   2   6   12    25
283        meri.uwasa.fi   44  0  0  0  0  1   0   2   8   11    22
284    gjr.paknet.com.pk   43  1  0  0  1  1   3   3   6   12    16
285 aristotle.algonet.se   41  0  0  0  0  0   1   2  11   12    15
286</pre>
287</blockquote>
288
289<p> The domains shown are mostly bulk-mailers and all the volume
290is the tail end of the time distribution, showing that short term
291arrival rates are moderate. Larger numbers and lower message ages
292are more indicative of current trouble. Old mail still going nowhere
293is largely harmless so long as the active and incoming queues are
294short. We can also see that the groups.msn.com undeliverables are
295low rate steady stream rather than a concentrated dictionary attack
296that is now over. </p>
297
298<blockquote>
299<pre>
300$ qshape -s deferred | head
301
302                     T  5 10 20 40 80 160 320 640 1280 1280+
303            TOTAL 2193  4  4  5  8 33  56 104 205  465  1309
304    MAILER-DAEMON 1709  4  4  5  8 33  55 101 198  452   849
305      example.com  263  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    2   261
306      example.org  209  0  0  0  0  0   1   3   6   11   188
307      example.net    6  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    0     6
308      example.edu    3  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    0     3
309      example.gov    2  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   1    0     1
310      example.mil    1  0  0  0  0  0   0   0   0    0     1
311</pre>
312</blockquote>
313
314<p> Looking at the sender distribution, we see that as expected
315most of the messages are bounces. </p>
316
317<h2><a name="active_congestion">Example 3: Congestion in the active
318queue</a></h2>
319
320<p> This example is taken from a Feb 2004 discussion on the Postfix
321Users list.  Congestion was reported with the active and incoming
322queues large and not shrinking despite very large delivery agent
323process limits.  The thread is archived at:
324http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=c0b7js$2r65$1@FreeBSD.csie.NCTU.edu.tw
325and
326http://archives.neohapsis.com/archives/postfix/2004-02/thread.html#1371
327</p>
328
329<p> Using an older version of qshape(1) it was quickly determined
330that all the messages were for just a few destinations: </p>
331
332<blockquote>
333<pre>
334$ qshape        <i>(show incoming and active queue status)</i>
335
336                           T   A   5  10  20  40  80 160 320 320+
337                 TOTAL 11775 9996  0   0   1   1  42  94 221 1420
338  user.sourceforge.net  7678 7678  0   0   0   0   0   0   0    0
339 lists.sourceforge.net  2313 2313  0   0   0   0   0   0   0    0
340        gzd.gotdns.com   102    0  0   0   0   0   0   0   2  100
341</pre>
342</blockquote>
343
344<p> The "A" column showed the count of messages in the active queue,
345and the numbered columns showed totals for the deferred queue. At
34610000 messages (Postfix 1.x active queue size limit) the active
347queue is full. The incoming was growing rapidly. </p>
348
349<p> With the trouble destinations clearly identified, the administrator
350quickly found and fixed the problem. It is substantially harder to
351glean the same information from the logs. While a careful reading
352of mailq(1) output should yield similar results, it is much harder
353to gauge the magnitude of the problem by looking at the queue
354one message at a time. </p>
355
356<h2><a name="backlog">Example 4: High volume destination backlog</a></h2>
357
358<p> When a site you send a lot of email to is down or slow, mail
359messages will rapidly build up in the deferred queue, or worse, in
360the active queue. The qshape output will show large numbers for
361the destination domain in all age buckets that overlap the starting
362time of the problem: </p>
363
364<blockquote>
365<pre>
366$ qshape deferred | head
367
368                    T   5  10  20  40   80  160 320 640 1280 1280+
369           TOTAL 5000 200 200 400 800 1600 1000 200 200  200   200
370  highvolume.com 4000 160 160 320 640 1280 1440   0   0    0     0
371             ...
372</pre>
373</blockquote>
374
375<p> Here the "highvolume.com" destination is continuing to accumulate
376deferred mail. The incoming and active queues are fine, but the
377deferred queue started growing some time between 1 and 2 hours ago
378and continues to grow. </p>
379
380<p> If the high volume destination is not down, but is instead
381slow, one might see similar congestion in the active queue. Active
382queue congestion is a greater cause for alarm; one might need to
383take measures to ensure that the mail is deferred instead or even
384add an access(5) rule asking the sender to try again later. </p>
385
386<p> If a high volume destination exhibits frequent bursts of consecutive
387connections refused by all MX hosts or "421 Server busy errors", it
388is possible for the queue manager to mark the destination as "dead"
389despite the transient nature of the errors. The destination will be
390retried again after the expiration of a $minimal_backoff_time timer.
391If the error bursts are frequent enough it may be that only a small
392quantity of email is delivered before the destination is again marked
393"dead". In some cases enabling static (not on demand) connection
394caching by listing the appropriate nexthop domain in a table included in
395"smtp_connection_cache_destinations" may help to reduce the error rate,
396because most messages will re-use existing connections. </p>
397
398<p> The MTA that has been observed most frequently to exhibit such
399bursts of errors is Microsoft Exchange, which refuses connections
400under load. Some proxy virus scanners in front of the Exchange
401server propagate the refused connection to the client as a "421"
402error. </p>
403
404<p> Note that it is now possible to configure Postfix to exhibit similarly
405erratic behavior by misconfiguring the anvil(8) service.  Do not use
406anvil(8) for steady-state rate limiting, its purpose is (unintentional)
407DoS prevention and the rate limits set should be very generous! </p>
408
409<p> If one finds oneself needing to deliver a high volume of mail to a
410destination that exhibits frequent brief bursts of errors and connection
411caching does not solve the problem, there is a subtle workaround. </p>
412
413<ul>
414
415<li> <p> Postfix version 2.5 and later: </p>
416
417<ul>
418
419<li> <p> In master.cf set up a dedicated clone of the "smtp" transport
420for the destination in question. In the example below we will call
421it "fragile". </p>
422
423<li> <p> In master.cf configure a reasonable process limit for the
424cloned smtp transport (a number in the 10-20 range is typical). </p>
425
426<li> <p> IMPORTANT!!! In main.cf configure a large per-destination
427pseudo-cohort failure limit for the cloned smtp transport. </p>
428
429<pre>
430/etc/postfix/main.cf:
431    transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
432    fragile_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 100
433    fragile_destination_concurrency_limit = 20
434
435/etc/postfix/transport:
436    example.com  fragile:
437
438/etc/postfix/master.cf:
439    # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command
440    fragile   unix     -       -       n       -      20    smtp
441</pre>
442
443<p> See also the documentation for
444default_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit and
445default_destination_concurrency_limit. </p>
446
447</ul>
448
449<li> <p> Earlier Postfix versions: </p>
450
451<ul>
452
453<li> <p> In master.cf set up a dedicated clone of the "smtp"
454transport for the destination in question. In the example below
455we will call it "fragile". </p>
456
457<li> <p> In master.cf configure a reasonable process limit for the
458transport (a number in the 10-20 range is typical). </p>
459
460<li> <p> IMPORTANT!!! In main.cf configure a very large initial
461and destination concurrency limit for this transport (say 2000). </p>
462
463<pre>
464/etc/postfix/main.cf:
465    transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
466    initial_destination_concurrency = 2000
467    fragile_destination_concurrency_limit = 2000
468
469/etc/postfix/transport:
470    example.com  fragile:
471
472/etc/postfix/master.cf:
473    # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command
474    fragile   unix     -       -       n       -      20    smtp
475</pre>
476
477<p> See also the documentation for default_destination_concurrency_limit.
478</p>
479
480</ul>
481
482</ul>
483
484<p> The effect of this configuration is that up to 2000
485consecutive errors are tolerated without marking the destination
486dead, while the total concurrency remains reasonable (10-20
487processes). This trick is only for a very specialized situation:
488high volume delivery into a channel with multi-error bursts
489that is capable of high throughput, but is repeatedly throttled by
490the bursts of errors. </p>
491
492<p> When a destination is unable to handle the load even after the
493Postfix process limit is reduced to 1, a desperate measure is to
494insert brief delays between delivery attempts. </p>
495
496<ul> 
497
498<li> <p> Postfix version 2.5 and later: </p>
499
500<ul>
501
502<li> <p> In master.cf set up a dedicated clone of the "smtp" transport
503for the problem destination. In the example below we call it "slow".
504</p>
505
506<li> <p> In main.cf configure a short delay between deliveries to
507the same destination.  </p>
508
509<pre>
510/etc/postfix/main.cf:
511    transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
512    slow_destination_rate_delay = 1
513    slow_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit = 100
514
515/etc/postfix/transport:
516    example.com  slow:
517
518/etc/postfix/master.cf:
519    # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command
520    slow      unix     -       -       n       -       -    smtp
521</pre>
522
523</ul>
524
525<p> See also the documentation for default_destination_rate_delay. </p>
526
527<p> This solution forces the Postfix smtp(8) client to wait for
528$slow_destination_rate_delay seconds between deliveries to the same
529destination.  </p>
530
531<p> IMPORTANT!! The large slow_destination_concurrency_failed_cohort_limit
532value is needed. This prevents Postfix from deferring all mail for
533the same destination after only one connection or handshake error
534(the reason for this is that non-zero slow_destination_rate_delay
535forces a per-destination concurrency of 1).  </p>
536
537<li> <p> Earlier Postfix versions: </p>
538
539<ul>
540
541<li> <p>  In the transport map entry for the problem destination,
542specify a dead host as the primary nexthop. </p>
543
544<li> <p> In the master.cf entry for the transport specify the
545problem destination as the fallback_relay and specify a small
546smtp_connect_timeout value. </p>
547
548<pre>
549/etc/postfix/main.cf:
550    transport_maps = hash:/etc/postfix/transport
551
552/etc/postfix/transport:
553    example.com  slow:[dead.host]
554
555/etc/postfix/master.cf:
556    # service type  private unpriv  chroot  wakeup  maxproc command
557    slow      unix     -       -       n       -       1    smtp
558        -o fallback_relay=problem.example.com
559        -o smtp_connect_timeout=1
560        -o smtp_connection_cache_on_demand=no
561</pre>
562
563</ul>
564
565<p> This solution forces the Postfix smtp(8) client to wait for
566$smtp_connect_timeout seconds between deliveries. The connection
567caching feature is disabled to prevent the client from skipping
568over the dead host.  </p>
569
570</ul>
571
572<h2><a name="queues">Postfix queue directories</a></h2>
573
574<p> The following sections describe Postfix queues: their purpose,
575what normal behavior looks like, and how to diagnose abnormal
576behavior. </p>
577
578<h3> <a name="maildrop_queue"> The "maildrop" queue </a> </h3>
579
580<p> Messages that have been submitted via the Postfix sendmail(1)
581command, but not yet brought into the main Postfix queue by the
582pickup(8) service, await processing in the "maildrop" queue. Messages
583can be added to the "maildrop" queue even when the Postfix system
584is not running. They will begin to be processed once Postfix is
585started.  </p>
586
587<p> The "maildrop" queue is drained by the single threaded pickup(8)
588service scanning the queue directory periodically or when notified
589of new message arrival by the postdrop(1) program. The postdrop(1)
590program is a setgid helper that allows the unprivileged Postfix
591sendmail(1) program to inject mail into the "maildrop" queue and
592to notify the pickup(8) service of its arrival. </p>
593
594<p> All mail that enters the main Postfix queue does so via the
595cleanup(8) service. The cleanup service is responsible for envelope
596and header rewriting, header and body regular expression checks,
597automatic bcc recipient processing, milter content processing, and
598reliable insertion of the message into the Postfix "incoming" queue. </p>
599
600<p> In the absence of excessive CPU consumption in cleanup(8) header
601or body regular expression checks or other software consuming all
602available CPU resources, Postfix performance is disk I/O bound.
603The rate at which the pickup(8) service can inject messages into
604the queue is largely determined by disk access times, since the
605cleanup(8) service must commit the message to stable storage before
606returning success. The same is true of the postdrop(1) program
607writing the message to the "maildrop" directory. </p>
608
609<p> As the pickup service is single threaded, it can only deliver
610one message at a time at a rate that does not exceed the reciprocal
611disk I/O latency (+ CPU if not negligible) of the cleanup service.
612</p>
613
614<p> Congestion in this queue is indicative of an excessive local message
615submission rate or perhaps excessive CPU consumption in the cleanup(8)
616service due to excessive body_checks, or (Postfix &ge; 2.3) high latency
617milters. </p>
618
619<p> Note, that once the active queue is full, the cleanup service
620will attempt to slow down message injection by pausing $in_flow_delay
621for each message. In this case "maildrop" queue congestion may be
622a consequence of congestion downstream, rather than a problem in
623its own right. </p>
624
625<p> Note, you should not attempt to deliver large volumes of mail via
626the pickup(8) service. High volume sites should avoid using "simple"
627content filters that re-inject scanned mail via Postfix sendmail(1)
628and postdrop(1). </p>
629
630<p> A high arrival rate of locally submitted mail may be an indication
631of an uncaught forwarding loop, or a run-away notification program.
632Try to keep the volume of local mail injection to a moderate level.
633</p>
634
635<p> The "postsuper -r" command can place selected messages into
636the "maildrop" queue for reprocessing. This is most useful for
637resetting any stale content_filter settings. Requeuing a large number
638of messages using "postsuper -r" can clearly cause a spike in the
639size of the "maildrop" queue. </p>
640
641<h3> <a name="hold_queue"> The "hold" queue </a> </h3>
642
643<p> The administrator can define "smtpd" access(5) policies, or
644cleanup(8) header/body checks that cause messages to be automatically
645diverted from normal processing and placed indefinitely in the
646"hold" queue. Messages placed in the "hold" queue stay there until
647the administrator intervenes. No periodic delivery attempts are
648made for messages in the "hold" queue. The postsuper(1) command
649can be used to manually release messages into the "deferred" queue.
650</p>
651
652<p> Messages can potentially stay in the "hold" queue longer than
653$maximal_queue_lifetime. If such "old" messages need to be released from
654the "hold" queue, they should typically be moved into the "maildrop"
655queue using "postsuper -r", so that the message gets a new timestamp and
656is given more than one opportunity to be delivered.  Messages that are
657"young" can be moved directly into the "deferred" queue using
658"postsuper -H". </p>
659
660<p> The "hold" queue plays little role in Postfix performance, and
661monitoring of the "hold" queue is typically more closely motivated
662by tracking spam and malware, than by performance issues. </p>
663
664<h3> <a name="incoming_queue"> The "incoming" queue </a> </h3>
665
666<p> All new mail entering the Postfix queue is written by the
667cleanup(8) service into the "incoming" queue. New queue files are
668created owned by the "postfix" user with an access bitmask (or
669mode) of 0600. Once a queue file is ready for further processing
670the cleanup(8) service changes the queue file mode to 0700 and
671notifies the queue manager of new mail arrival. The queue manager
672ignores incomplete queue files whose mode is 0600, as these are
673still being written by cleanup.  </p>
674
675<p> The queue manager scans the incoming queue bringing any new
676mail into the "active" queue if the active queue resource limits
677have not been exceeded. By default, the active queue accommodates
678at most 20000 messages. Once the active queue message limit is
679reached, the queue manager stops scanning the incoming (and deferred,
680see below) queue.  </p>
681
682<p> Under normal conditions the incoming queue is nearly empty (has
683only mode 0600 files), with the queue manager able to import new
684messages into the active queue as soon as they become available.
685</p>
686
687<p> The incoming queue grows when the message input rate spikes
688above the rate at which the queue manager can import messages into
689the active queue. The main factors slowing down the queue manager
690are disk I/O and lookup queries to the trivial-rewrite service. If the queue
691manager is routinely not keeping up, consider not using "slow"
692lookup services (MySQL, LDAP, ...) for transport lookups or speeding
693up the hosts that provide the lookup service.  If the problem is I/O
694starvation, consider striping the queue over more disks, faster controllers
695with a battery write cache, or other hardware improvements. At the very
696least, make sure that the queue directory is mounted with the "noatime"
697option if applicable to the underlying filesystem. </p>
698
699<p> The in_flow_delay parameter is used to clamp the input rate
700when the queue manager starts to fall behind. The cleanup(8) service
701will pause for $in_flow_delay seconds before creating a new queue
702file if it cannot obtain a "token" from the queue manager.  </p>
703
704<p> Since the number of cleanup(8) processes is limited in most
705cases by the SMTP server concurrency, the input rate can exceed
706the output rate by at most "SMTP connection count" / $in_flow_delay
707messages per second.  </p>
708
709<p> With a default process limit of 100, and an in_flow_delay of
7101s, the coupling is strong enough to limit a single run-away injector
711to 1 message per second, but is not strong enough to deflect an
712excessive input rate from many sources at the same time.  </p>
713
714<p> If a server is being hammered from multiple directions, consider
715raising the in_flow_delay to 10 seconds, but only if the incoming
716queue is growing even while the active queue is not full and the
717trivial-rewrite service is using a fast transport lookup mechanism.
718</p>
719
720<h3> <a name="active_queue"> The "active" queue </a> </h3>
721
722<p> The queue manager is a delivery agent scheduler; it works to
723ensure fast and fair delivery of mail to all destinations within
724designated resource limits.  </p>
725
726<p> The active queue is somewhat analogous to an operating system's
727process run queue. Messages in the active queue are ready to be
728sent (runnable), but are not necessarily in the process of being
729sent (running).  </p>
730
731<p> While most Postfix administrators think of the "active" queue
732as a directory on disk, the real "active" queue is a set of data
733structures in the memory of the queue manager process.  </p>
734
735<p> Messages in the "maildrop", "hold", "incoming" and "deferred"
736queues (see below) do not occupy memory; they are safely stored on
737disk waiting for their turn to be processed. The envelope information
738for messages in the "active" queue is managed in memory, allowing
739the queue manager to do global scheduling, allocating available
740delivery agent processes to an appropriate message in the active
741queue.  </p>
742
743<p> Within the active queue, (multi-recipient) messages are broken
744up into groups of recipients that share the same transport/nexthop
745combination; the group size is capped by the transport's recipient
746concurrency limit.  </p>
747
748<p> Multiple recipient groups (from one or more messages) are queued
749for delivery grouped by transport/nexthop combination. The
750<b>destination</b> concurrency limit for the transports caps the number
751of simultaneous delivery attempts for each nexthop. Transports with
752a <b>recipient</b> concurrency limit of 1 are special: these are grouped
753by the actual recipient address rather than the nexthop, yielding
754per-recipient concurrency limits rather than per-domain
755concurrency limits. Per-recipient limits are appropriate when
756performing final delivery to mailboxes rather than when relaying
757to a remote server.  </p>
758
759<p> Congestion occurs in the active queue when one or more destinations
760drain slower than the corresponding message input rate. </p>
761
762<p> Input into the active queue comes both from new mail in the "incoming"
763queue, and retries of mail in the "deferred" queue. Should the "deferred"
764queue get really large, retries of old mail can dominate the arrival
765rate of new mail. Systems with more CPU, faster disks and more network
766bandwidth can deal with larger deferred queues, but as a rule of thumb
767the deferred queue scales to somewhere between 100,000 and 1,000,000
768messages with good performance unlikely above that "limit". Systems with
769queues this large should typically stop accepting new mail, or put the
770backlog "on hold" until the underlying issue is fixed (provided that
771there is enough capacity to handle just the new mail). </p>
772
773<p> When a destination is down for some time, the queue manager will
774mark it dead, and immediately defer all mail for the destination without
775trying to assign it to a delivery agent. In this case the messages
776will quickly leave the active queue and end up in the deferred queue
777(with Postfix &lt; 2.4, this is done directly by the queue manager,
778with Postfix &ge; 2.4 this is done via the "retry" delivery agent). </p>
779
780<p> When the destination is instead simply slow, or there is a problem
781causing an excessive arrival rate the active queue will grow and will
782become dominated by mail to the congested destination.  </p>
783
784<p> The only way to reduce congestion is to either reduce the input
785rate or increase the throughput. Increasing the throughput requires
786either increasing the concurrency or reducing the latency of
787deliveries.  </p>
788
789<p> For high volume sites a key tuning parameter is the number of
790"smtp" delivery agents allocated to the "smtp" and "relay" transports.
791High volume sites tend to send to many different destinations, many
792of which may be down or slow, so a good fraction of the available
793delivery agents will be blocked waiting for slow sites. Also mail
794destined across the globe will incur large SMTP command-response
795latencies, so high message throughput can only be achieved with
796more concurrent delivery agents.  </p>
797
798<p> The default "smtp" process limit of 100 is good enough for most
799sites, and may even need to be lowered for sites with low bandwidth
800connections (no use increasing concurrency once the network pipe
801is full). When one finds that the queue is growing on an "idle"
802system (CPU, disk I/O and network not exhausted) the remaining
803reason for congestion is insufficient concurrency in the face of
804a high average latency. If the number of outbound SMTP connections
805(either ESTABLISHED or SYN_SENT) reaches the process limit, mail
806is draining slowly and the system and network are not loaded, raise
807the "smtp" and/or "relay" process limits!  </p>
808
809<p> When a high volume destination is served by multiple MX hosts with
810typically low delivery latency, performance can suffer dramatically when
811one of the MX hosts is unresponsive and SMTP connections to that host
812timeout. For example, if there are 2 equal weight MX hosts, the SMTP
813connection timeout is 30 seconds and one of the MX hosts is down, the
814average SMTP connection will take approximately 15 seconds to complete.
815With a default per-destination concurrency limit of 20 connections,
816throughput falls to just over 1 message per second. </p>
817
818<p> The best way to avoid bottlenecks when one or more MX hosts is
819non-responsive is to use connection caching. Connection caching was
820introduced with Postfix 2.2 and is by default enabled on demand for
821destinations with a backlog of mail in the active queue. When connection
822caching is in effect for a particular destination, established connections
823are re-used to send additional messages, this reduces the number of
824connections made per message delivery and maintains good throughput even
825in the face of partial unavailability of the destination's MX hosts. </p>
826
827<p> If connection caching is not available (Postfix &lt; 2.2) or does
828not provide a sufficient latency reduction, especially for the "relay"
829transport used to forward mail to "your own" domains, consider setting
830lower than default SMTP connection timeouts (1-5 seconds) and higher
831than default destination concurrency limits. This will further reduce
832latency and provide more concurrency to maintain throughput should
833latency rise. </p>
834
835<p> Setting high concurrency limits to domains that are not your own may
836be viewed as hostile by the receiving system, and steps may be taken
837to prevent you from monopolizing the destination system's resources.
838The defensive measures may substantially reduce your throughput or block
839access entirely. Do not set aggressive concurrency limits to remote
840domains without coordinating with the administrators of the target
841domain. </p>
842
843<p> If necessary, dedicate and tune custom transports for selected high
844volume destinations. The "relay" transport is provided for forwarding mail
845to domains for which your server is a primary or backup MX host. These can
846make up a substantial fraction of your email traffic. Use the "relay" and
847not the "smtp" transport to send email to these domains. Using the "relay"
848transport allocates a separate delivery agent pool to these destinations
849and allows separate tuning of timeouts and concurrency limits. </p>
850
851<p> Another common cause of congestion is unwarranted flushing of the
852entire deferred queue. The deferred queue holds messages that are likely
853to fail to be delivered and are also likely to be slow to fail delivery
854(time out). As a result the most common reaction to a large deferred queue
855(flush it!) is more than likely counter-productive, and typically makes
856the congestion worse. Do not flush the deferred queue unless you expect
857that most of its content has recently become deliverable (e.g. relayhost
858back up after an outage)!  </p>
859
860<p> Note that whenever the queue manager is restarted, there may
861already be messages in the active queue directory, but the "real"
862active queue in memory is empty. In order to recover the in-memory
863state, the queue manager moves all the active queue messages
864back into the incoming queue, and then uses its normal incoming
865queue scan to refill the active queue. The process of moving all
866the messages back and forth, redoing transport table (trivial-rewrite(8)
867resolve service) lookups, and re-importing the messages back into
868memory is expensive. At all costs, avoid frequent restarts of the
869queue manager (e.g. via frequent execution of "postfix reload").  </p>
870
871<h3> <a name="deferred_queue"> The "deferred" queue </a> </h3>
872
873<p> When all the deliverable recipients for a message are delivered,
874and for some recipients delivery failed for a transient reason (it
875might succeed later), the message is placed in the deferred queue.
876</p>
877
878<p> The queue manager scans the deferred queue periodically. The scan
879interval is controlled by the queue_run_delay parameter.  While a deferred
880queue scan is in progress, if an incoming queue scan is also in progress
881(ideally these are brief since the incoming queue should be short), the
882queue manager alternates between looking for messages in the "incoming"
883queue and in the "deferred" queue. This "round-robin" strategy prevents
884starvation of either the incoming or the deferred queues.  </p>
885
886<p> Each deferred queue scan only brings a fraction of the deferred
887queue back into the active queue for a retry. This is because each
888message in the deferred queue is assigned a "cool-off" time when
889it is deferred.  This is done by time-warping the modification
890time of the queue file into the future. The queue file is not
891eligible for a retry if its modification time is not yet reached.
892</p>
893
894<p> The "cool-off" time is at least $minimal_backoff_time and at
895most $maximal_backoff_time. The next retry time is set by doubling
896the message's age in the queue, and adjusting up or down to lie
897within the limits. This means that young messages are initially
898retried more often than old messages.  </p>
899
900<p> If a high volume site routinely has large deferred queues, it
901may be useful to adjust the queue_run_delay, minimal_backoff_time and
902maximal_backoff_time to provide short enough delays on first failure
903(Postfix &ge; 2.4 has a sensibly low minimal backoff time by default),
904with perhaps longer delays after multiple failures, to reduce the
905retransmission rate of old messages and thereby reduce the quantity
906of previously deferred mail in the active queue.  If you want a really
907low minimal_backoff_time, you may also want to lower queue_run_delay,
908but understand that more frequent scans will increase the demand for
909disk I/O. </p>
910
911<p> One common cause of large deferred queues is failure to validate
912recipients at the SMTP input stage. Since spammers routinely launch
913dictionary attacks from unrepliable sender addresses, the bounces
914for invalid recipient addresses clog the deferred queue (and at high
915volumes proportionally clog the active queue). Recipient validation
916is strongly recommended through use of the local_recipient_maps and
917relay_recipient_maps parameters. Even when bounces drain quickly they
918inundate innocent victims of forgery with unwanted email. To avoid
919this, do not accept mail for invalid recipients. </p>
920
921<p> When a host with lots of deferred mail is down for some time,
922it is possible for the entire deferred queue to reach its retry
923time simultaneously. This can lead to a very full active queue once
924the host comes back up. The phenomenon can repeat approximately
925every maximal_backoff_time seconds if the messages are again deferred
926after a brief burst of congestion. Perhaps, a future Postfix release
927will add a random offset to the retry time (or use a combination
928of strategies) to reduce the odds of repeated complete deferred
929queue flushes.  </p>
930
931<h2><a name="credits">Credits</a></h2>
932
933<p> The qshape(1) program was developed by Victor Duchovni of Morgan
934Stanley, who also wrote the initial version of this document.  </p>
935
936</body>
937
938</html>
939