----- 原文 ----- 发件人: Noel Jones 主 题: Re: mynetworks hash tables时 间: 2010年5月4日
05时58分54秒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
