* Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits > > on Posfix @ Linux. > > It comes down to the IO scheduler. Linux is designed to be general purpose. > FreeBSD is designed to be much more specific.
hmm, Linux provides several io schedulers - does choosing another one help here ? > > Well, portage could be much thinner if certain things would be > > moved explicitly out-of-scope or solved more generic on a > > different layer. (yes, I'm explicitly ignoring the historical > > issues right now ;-p). > > My beef with portage in my specific production setup is the amount of work it > takes my guys to keep everything up to date. Yes, that's still a problem. I myself for example have a dozen of containers w/ Gentoo, and I'm still trying to figure out how to control which packages should be updated fully automatically, w/o triggering updates of others that I want to approve explicitly. Once I've ported a buch of more packages to sysroot'ed builds, I'll migrate to Briegel[1]-built images. cu [1] https://sourceforge.net/p/briegel/ -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weig...@metux.de mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme ----------------------------------------------------------------------
