On 5/3/2010 4:30 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
I have a need to migrate some IP's from a static file to a hash file. These
are singleton IP's (hash CIDR's).
hash != cidr
It was meant to read "singleton IP's (not CIDR's)". I need to do a little more
proof reading before sending out these things.
i.e. would this be acceptable for this type of map?
10.20.0.2 ok
10.20.1.91 ok
...
yes. but in this case, prefer cidr over hash.
I think we are dealing with 50 or so IP's on a bunch of different blocks. The
10.20.x.x above was an example. Almost everything in the mydestination file is
currently /32, with the exception of our internal ranges. It's these /32 that
would be migrated to a hash.
Either hash: or cidr: tables will work well for that purpose,
with likely no measurable difference in overall performance.
Hash: has the advantage that postfix will recognize changes
automatically and restart affected services right away. Cidr:
will take a little longer to pick up changes, but should use a
little less memory (with your stated ~50 entries). I'd go
with hash: if memory isn't an issue.
-- Noel Jones
