On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:21 AM, Steffen Kaiser <skdove...@smail.inf.fh-brs.de
> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Eric Jon Rostetter wrote:
For a massively scaled system, there may be sufficient performance to
put the queues elsewhere.
Which also allows that the queue can easily have multiple machines
pushing & poping items.
Pushing is easy. Popping can be more problematic, depending on varios
factors.
But on a small system, with 90% of the mail
being spam/virus/malware, performance will usually dictate local/
memory
file systems for such queues...
Well, this discussion reads a bit like "local filesystems are prone
to loose data on crash".
Journaling filesystems, RAID1 / 5 / 10, SANs do their job.
The issue I brought up is OS caching and is not dependent on the
backend really. Only real solution is redundent storage AND disabling
OS caching, which is not cheap and won't be the best performance.
Always a tradeoff.
However, I guess that Seth and Timo look at the thing from a
different point of view, Timo seems to focus on "one queue -
multiple accessees", whereas Seth focuses on temporary working
directory.
Well Timo looks at it from dovecot's point of view.
I look at it from a mail server's point of view (MTA also, etc).
Bye,
- -- Steffen Kaiser
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iQEVAwUBSoJtbnWSIuGy1ktrAQKj9Af/ajuegRCmDRZq/E7vt3EwDxd6ob8bNaY0
bP0Vu2bs2df/GeGKbrFiOCNyq4NMADTejNie9WQMANSB8dM7qMPjdLD68rbD70+k
/UIafifb0fXBlvZTrPvKHGf1grB2qb71NAXhPi0QinbCo1CSdP4+J53XssxElrYD
YLpAOBpQFkZ2I3Ji1DDpS4Xu7n0lCG0nf4dB8frtGyBf7BGFis0EpudByAAOMsiJ
MesR5jbz3xFD5KM62YWlOyRF/3DaOCSo1DVMg6TG+ddTyulW0mCsxKRQ01Py7khm
CKp87ucG77gDR1gn341x7zbhH5TtrC1t4rRzpBBujLDcy8F0DkM4yw==
=0WvU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
