On 09/21/2010 09:18 PM, Jay G. Scott wrote:
they haven't started shouting yet, but i sense it's coming.
i just swapped postfix in for sendmail on a mail server.
Congratulations , you've arrived on the right side of sanity :)
are there any metrics i can get to show why postfix is better?
What "metrics" would these be ?
If you want to compare how postfix performs for you then you would need
to have metrics for your old mail system to start with - do you have those ?
If not, there's nothing to discuss - or compare.
they seem to be all up in arms about memory usage.
Memory is incredibly cheap these days - if you can't reach your goals
with a few GB of RAM, you're running a pretty high volume system,
processing hundreds if not thousands of concurrent messages.
On today's hardware, you're going to bottleneck on disk I/O wayyy before
memory is ever a problem.
but doing this
ps -eo pid,vsz,rss,pmem,time,comm | grep sendmail
vs. this
ps -eo uid,pid,vsz,rss,pmem,time,comm | grep 33508
doesn't show much diff in rss.
You're not showing any actual data, so how are we to argue ?
How many threads are we talking about ? 100 concurrent clients and SMTP
delivery sessions ? 1000 ? 10000 ?
postfix is more secure,
so i read on the web, but that's intangible.
Why is testable security intangible ?
If you want one fact why I think postfix is more secure than sendmail,
it's simple: I can read and understand the postfix config.
I can't decypher the sendmail cf file, so I have no way of proving that
it is secure, even if I managed to configure it for my requirements.
i don't think i need to be exhaustive. but right now
i don't have anything i can use to win this argument,
objectively, anyway.
It's not an argument you can win objectively - if such were possible,
nobody would be using MS Exchange anymore.
It's ultimately down to your comfort level, your requirements, and -
most of all - cost!
If you lack the knowledge to maintain either, both will be expensive for
you to run.
j.
--
J.
