On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:47, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote: > > On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:29, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > We have a lot of resources, why can't we invest some of them into a > > > small three or four machine cluster to handle all debian email (MLs > > > included), > > > > A four machine cluster can be used for the entire email needs of a > > 500,000 user ISP. I really doubt that we need so much hardware. > > Including the needed redundancy (two MX at least), and a mailing list > processing facility that absolutely has to have AV and AntiSPAM measures at > least on the level gluck has right now?
The Debian email isn't that big. We can do it all on a single machine (including spamassasin etc) with capacity to spare. > Yes, one machine that is just a MTA, without AV or Antispam should be able > to push enough mail for @d.o. One machine should be able to do it with AV and antispam. Four AV/antispam machines can handle the load for an ISP with almost 1,500,000 users, one should do for Debian. > But we really should have two of them (in > different backbones), with the same priority as MX. Why? > It would be nice to > have a third MTA with less priority and heavier anti-spam machinery > installed. Bad idea. > > OK, having a single dedicated mail server instead of a general machine > > like master makes sense. > > Two so that we have some redundancy, please. IMHO email is important enough > in Debian to deserve two full MX boxes (that never forward to one another). As long as the machine is fixed within four days of a problem we don't need more than one. Email can be delayed, it's something you have to get used to. > > U320 is not required. I don't believe that you can demonstrate any > > Required? No. Nice to have given the hardware prices available, probably. > If the price difference is that big, U160 is more than enough. But > top-notch RAID hardware nowadays is always U320, so unless the hotswap U160 > enclosures and disks are that much cheaper... and the price difference > from a non top-notch HW RAID controller that is still really good, and a a > top-notch one is not that big. We don't need high-end hardware. Debian's email requirements are nothing compared to any serious ISP. > > http://www.umem.com/16GB_Battery_Backed_PCI_NVRAM.html > > How much? It certainly looks very good. If you want to buy one then you have to apply for a quote. > > I've run an ISP with more than 1,000,000 users with LDAP used for the > > back-end. The way it worked was that mail came to front-end servers > > which did LDAP lookups to determine which back-end server to deliver to. > > The > > I meant LDAP being used for the MTA routing and and rewriting. That's far > more than one lookup per mail message :( Yes, I've done all that too. It's really no big deal. Lots of Debian developers have run servers that make all Debian's servers look like toys by comparison. > > back-end server had Courier POP or IMAP do another LDAP lookup. It > > worked fine with about 5 LDAP servers for 1,000,000 users. > > Well, we are talking MTA and not mail stores. The LDAP workload on a MTA > is usually quite different for the one in a mail store. Yes, it should be less load because you don't have POP or IMAP checks. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
