Demi Marie Obenour via Postfix-users:
> On 3/12/23 01:21, Bill Cole via Postfix-users wrote:
> > On 2023-03-12 at 00:03:32 UTC-0500 (Sun, 12 Mar 2023 00:03:32 -0500)
> > Phil Stracchino via Postfix-users <ph...@caerllewys.net>
> > is rumored to have said:
> >
> >> On 3/11/23 19:04, pyh--- via Postfix-users wrote:
> >>> Hello list,
> >>>
> >>> Is it possible to use an object storage system (like aws's S3) to
> >>> store
> >>> message files? if this can be implemented we may have a more
> >>> persistent
> >>> storage for email. AFAIK aws's S3 has three replicas for each file in
> >>> their system by default.
> >>
> >>
> >> S3 really isn't intended to be used that way. I'm not sure how you'd
> >> make that work and it would probably be a bad idea.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > As far as Postfix specifically is concerned (i.e. the queues) S3 would
> > be a performance disaster.
>
> Is this because Postfix is designed assuming that queue access has low
> latency, and therefore does not try to hide the latency with asynchronous
> operations and batching?
Postfix must wait for fsync() to complete (or whatever its Cloud
equivalent is), before it can take responsibility for delivery of
a message. Only then can the sender delete that message from their
mail queue. This waiting introduces latency.
Postfix can receive and deliver messages in parallel (default 100
parallel connections), but those transactions compete for access
to the mail queue. And there is only one scheduler.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
Postfix-users mailing list -- postfix-users@postfix.org
To unsubscribe send an email to postfix-users-le...@postfix.org
