On Tue, 2 Oct 2001 14:46:56 -0400 you said: >We have just dramatically upgraded our hardware for our Listserver, from a >350 mhz, 128 MB RAM, 10 GB HD WIN NT 4.0 to a 1000 mhz, 512 MB RAM, 40 GB >HD, WIN2K SP2. We do several mass emails involving several huge bulk >adds. On our old system it took up to 45 min to add 20,000 users to a >list. The CPU would also be maxed out, average about 95% cpu time during >the add. This would stall listserv performance until it was done, so the >listserv was not accessible through email or the web interface for 45 >minutes. > >Now with our new server the performance gains haven't been inspiring. It >takes upwards of 30 minutes to do a 20,000 user add, disabling listerv >(email and web interface). But with the new server the CPU seems to be >barely used, averaging 2% cpu time. The Listserv software isn't using all >the resources available on this new machine. Is there anyway to increase >the performance of the Listserv. I have changed the optimization levels to >the highest recommended values to no avail. How can I make sure Listserv >is using greatly improved hardware resources. I am not sure how it can be taking so long for you to add 20K users. I have a machine that is similar to yours (1GHz PIII, 1/2 the RAM, same OS, 7200RPM 60GB HD) and I was able to add 20K users to a list in .491 seconds. This was with LISTSERV HPO, BTW; you don't indicate if you have HPO or not. Here is the log: 2 Oct 2001 14:35:15 To [log in to unmask]: ADD: no error, 20,000 reci pients added, no entry changed, no duplicate, none (...) VCPU=0.300 TCPU-VCPU=0.160 Elapsed: 0.491 sec 2 Oct 2001 14:35:15 Sent information mail to [log in to unmask] The bulk add job looked like this: // job echo=no TIME QUIET ADD BIG DD=X IMPORT //X DD *,EOF (20K addresses, one per line) Even with non-HPO Classic I was able to add the users in just over a minute and a half: 2 Oct 2001 14:42:38 To [log in to unmask]: ADD: no error, 20,000 reci pients added, no entry changed, no duplicate, none (...) VCPU=78.032 TCPU-VCPU=21.140 Elapsed: 99.974 sec 2 Oct 2001 14:42:38 Sent information mail to [log in to unmask] You don't indicate if this is a DBMS list so I don't know if that's part of the equation. Certainly loading the data into a DBMS list would take longer but I'm not in a position to test that at the moment. Bottom line, LISTSERV is capable of doing what you want faster than your server seems to be doing it. I don't know what other factors might be involved but my machine is pretty much vanilla at this point (I just built it two weeks ago so I haven't had time to load it up). Nathan