On Thursday 14 June 2001 15:31, Marc Haber wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >One significant benefit of ReiserFS is that it is journalled and does
> > not require a lengthy fsck operation after a power failure.
>
> However, if the journal gets corrupted, you are in for serious
> trouble, becau
On Thursday 14 June 2001 15:31, Marc Haber wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >One significant benefit of ReiserFS is that it is journalled and does
> > not require a lengthy fsck operation after a power failure.
>
> However, if the journal gets corrupted, you are in for serious
> trouble, beca
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 09:59:50PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I have also thought about that... but if you have a look at Qmail's
> website (http://www.qmail.org) then you'll see that a number of
> extremely large mail companies (hotmail for one) uses qmail for... get
> this... outgoing mail. They c
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 09:59:50PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I have also thought about that... but if you have a look at Qmail's
> website (http://www.qmail.org) then you'll see that a number of
> extremely large mail companies (hotmail for one) uses qmail for... get
> this... outgoing mail. They
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:14:46 +0200, Russell Coker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One significant benefit of ReiserFS is that it is journalled and does not
>require a lengthy fsck operation after a power failure.
However, if the journal gets corrupted, you are in for serious
trouble, because Hans Rei
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:14:46 +0200, Russell Coker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>One significant benefit of ReiserFS is that it is journalled and does not
>require a lengthy fsck operation after a power failure.
However, if the journal gets corrupted, you are in for serious
trouble, because Hans Re
On Monday 11 June 2001 10:51, Jason Lim wrote:
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with
> a 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
2.4 has integrated ReiserFS support.
On Monday 11 June 2001 10:51, Jason Lim wrote:
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with
> a 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
2.4 has integrated ReiserFS support.
K odd
messages not preprocessed yet.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck (nearly there!)
> Hi,
&g
Hi,
Something VERY interested has occurred.
I kept playing around with the /var/qmail/queue directory, to see how I
could optimize it.
I also saw in some qmail-* manpage that mess & pid directories, and todo &
intd directories have to be on the same drive (or was that partition?
nevermind)
So s
izing proggies
(and they are pretty stable now too), we can't do that.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bott
everyone thats been following
this thread. Since he is the expert on this, he's the authority!
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: ; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Se
ect: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate
any
> > (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free
memory
> > int
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> Rik, as a general rule if a machine has 0 swap in use then can it be
> assumed that the gain from adding more RAM will be minimal or
> non-existant? Or is my previous assumption correct in that it could
> still be able to productively use more RAM for c
K odd
messages not preprocessed yet.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 11:59 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
Hi,
Something VERY interested has occurred.
I kept playing around with the /var/qmail/queue directory, to see how I
could optimize it.
I also saw in some qmail-* manpage that mess & pid directories, and todo &
intd directories have to be on the same drive (or was that partition?
nevermind)
So
ition resizing proggies
(and they are pretty stable now too), we can't do that.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:03 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bott
L PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:43 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Saturday 09 June 2001 20:04, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram,
> wouldn&#x
June 11, 2001 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate
any
> > (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw an
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001, Russell Coker wrote:
> Rik, as a general rule if a machine has 0 swap in use then can it be
> assumed that the gain from adding more RAM will be minimal or
> non-existant? Or is my previous assumption correct in that it could
> still be able to productively use more RAM for
On Saturday 09 June 2001 20:04, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram,
> wouldn't it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has
> 0kb in swap, and still has free memory.
T
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
> (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
> into buffers anyway.
>
> So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory,
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:51:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with a
> 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
Yup, it runs quit
L PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich Puhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Memory memory memory! True, memory is not cur
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:14:10AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were
doing
> > larg
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Marcin Owsiany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would
On Saturday 09 June 2001 20:04, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram,
> wouldn't it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has
> 0kb in swap, and still has free memory.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:49:21PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> AFAIK, even if there was a gig of ram in there, it would not allocate any
> (or maybe just a little) to free memory, and would throw any free memory
> into buffers anyway.
>
> So 68M of buffers tells me it has ample free memory
On Mon, Jun 11, 2001 at 04:51:03PM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Too bad this is a production system or I would try it. I've never tried
> reiserFS (neither has anyone else here) so we might test it along with a
> 2.4 kernel later. I hear 2.4 has intergrated reiserFS support?
Yup, it runs qui
t;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich Puhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Memory memory memor
n" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:14:10AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you w
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Marcin Owsiany" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > I'm not exactly su
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram, wouldn't
> it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has 0kb in
> swap, and still has free
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
> Right now, the swap is untouched. If the server needed more ram, wouldn't
> it be swapping something... anything? I mean, it currently has 0kb in
> swap, and still has fre
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:14:10AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were doing
> large file transfers and such, and that small random file transfers were
> not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong as I
> haven't
just what
I've heard.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Alson van der Meulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> > I&
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:14:10AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Actually, I thought they increased performance mainly if you were doing
> large file transfers and such, and that small random file transfers were
> not help (even hindered) by reiserFS. Don't flame me if I'm wrong as I
> haven'
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
[...]
>
> Anyway... as for the raid solution, is there anything I should look out
> for BEFORE i start implementing it? Like any particular disk or ext2
> settings that woul
son Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rich Puhek"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent t
just what
I've heard.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Alson van der Meulen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 2:32 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jaso
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
> while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
> sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
> would help much, would it? I t
On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
> but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
> sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
> help keep other DNS demands t
On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 02:04:36AM +0800, Jason Lim wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure how the Linux kernel would handle this.
>
[...]
>
> Anyway... as for the raid solution, is there anything I should look out
> for BEFORE i start implementing it? Like any particular disk or ext2
> settings that wou
son Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Rich Puhek"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2001 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top&quo
On Saturday 09 June 2001 08:23, Jason Lim wrote:
> Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
> while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
> sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
> would help much, would it? I
On Saturday 09 June 2001 01:11, Rich Puhek wrote:
> Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
> but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
> sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
> help keep other DNS demands
ifference :-/
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Puhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:11 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
ifference :-/
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Rich Puhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 7:11 AM
Subject: R
Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
help keep other DNS demands to a minimum.
The mail server will chew up a load of memor
Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
help keep other DNS demands to a minimum.
The mail server will chew up a load of memo
;
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> Today I played around with hdparm to see if I could tweak some
>
> Specifically, I set /sbin/hdparm -a4 -c3 -d
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> Today I played around with hdparm to see if I could tweak some
>
> Specifically, I set /sbin/hdparm -a4 -c3 -d1 -m16 -u1 /dev/hdc:
>
>-a Get/set sector count for filesystem read-ahead.
> This is used to improve perform
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:26, Jason Lim wrote:
> This statement makes me wonder:
> "Also even the slowest part of a 45G drive will be twice as fast as the
> fastest part of a 15G drive."
>
> Are you sure? I never heard this before... might be a 1% difference
There is a huge difference. I have tes
l Message -
From: "Peter Billson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> > Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
> > moderately
t;
To:
Cc: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> I agree with you that splitting the mail queue to another server
wouldn't
> help, especially since you've seen the top results, and know that it
isn&
fted to the CPU?!)
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 00:05, Jason Lim wrote:
&g
ely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian May"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 1
ED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:49 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> Today I played around with hdparm to see if I could tweak some
>
> Specifically,
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> Today I played around with hdparm to see if I could tweak some
>
> Specifically, I set /sbin/hdparm -a4 -c3 -d1 -m16 -u1 /dev/hdc:
>
>-a Get/set sector count for filesystem read-ahead.
> This is used to improve perfor
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:26, Jason Lim wrote:
> This statement makes me wonder:
> "Also even the slowest part of a 45G drive will be twice as fast as the
> fastest part of a 15G drive."
>
> Are you sure? I never heard this before... might be a 1% difference
There is a huge difference. I have te
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:14 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> I agree with you that splitting the mail queue to another server
wouldn't
> help, especially since you've seen the top resul
> Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
> moderately large list of domains (eg. aol), so the local DNS server
> would've cache them already anyway.
This has been a long thread so forgive me if this has already been
discussed but...
If you are usually delivering mult
fted to the CPU?!)
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 00:05
ely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Brian May"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottl
l Message -
From: "Peter Billson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 8:04 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> > Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get
On Friday 08 June 2001 12:25, Jason Lim wrote:
> The network is connected via 100Mb to a switch, so server to server
> connections would be at that limit. Even 10Mb wouldn't be a problem as
> I don't think that much data would be crossing the cable.. would it?
10Mb shouldn't be a problem for DNS.
OTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 05:47, Rich Puhek wrote:
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS?
> Quit
On Friday 08 June 2001 05:47, Rich Puhek wrote:
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS?
> Quite often you'll find that DNS lookups are severely limiting the
> performance of something like a mailing list. M
"Brian May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 10:49, Brian May wrote:
> Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you wil
TED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 at 22:47:09 -0500, Rich Puhek wrote:
> [...]
> > Also, there are probably some optimizations you can do for queue sort
> >
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 at 22:47:09 -0500, Rich Puhek wrote:
[...]
> Also, there are probably some optimizations you can do for queue sort
> order. I'm most familiar with Sendmail, not qmail, so I don't know the
> exact settings, but try to process the queue according to recipient
> domain. That way, y
On Friday 08 June 2001 10:49, Brian May wrote:
> Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
> Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
> Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
> Russell> productively be done to the main
> Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
> moderately large list of domains (eg. aol), so the local DNS server
> would've cache them already anyway.
This has been a long thread so forgive me if this has already been
discussed but...
If you are usually delivering mul
Maybe a local caching nameserver will help here as well.
(Just a quick though.)
Cheers, Marcel
Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 Jun 2001, at 22:47:
> By the way,
>
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
Russell> productively be done to t
On Friday 08 June 2001 12:25, Jason Lim wrote:
> The network is connected via 100Mb to a switch, so server to server
> connections would be at that limit. Even 10Mb wouldn't be a problem as
> I don't think that much data would be crossing the cable.. would it?
10Mb shouldn't be a problem for DNS.
L PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:18 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 05:47, Rich Puhek wrote:
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looke
On Friday 08 June 2001 05:47, Rich Puhek wrote:
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS?
> Quite often you'll find that DNS lookups are severely limiting the
> performance of something like a mailing list.
]>
To: "Brian May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Friday 08 June 2001 10:49, Brian May wrote:
> Russell> If the NFS server has the
TED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 6:04 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 at 22:47:09 -0500, Rich Puhek wrote:
> [...]
> > Also, there are probably some optimizations you can
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 at 22:47:09 -0500, Rich Puhek wrote:
[...]
> Also, there are probably some optimizations you can do for queue sort
> order. I'm most familiar with Sendmail, not qmail, so I don't know the
> exact settings, but try to process the queue according to recipient
> domain. That way,
On Friday 08 June 2001 10:49, Brian May wrote:
> Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
> Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
> Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
> Russell> productively be done to the mai
Maybe a local caching nameserver will help here as well.
(Just a quick though.)
Cheers, Marcel
Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 Jun 2001, at 22:47:
> By the way,
>
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DN
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
Russell> productively be done to
By the way,
In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS? Quite
often you'll find that DNS lookups are severely limiting the performance
of something like a mailing list. Make sure that the mail server itself
isn't
On Friday 08 June 2001 00:05, Jason Lim wrote:
> Thanks for your detailed reply.
>
> As reliability is not of great importance (only the mail queue will be
> there and no critical system files), I'd go for speed and cheap price.
> The client doesn't have the huge wads of cash for the optimal system
Hi all,
I was wondering if there is a way to find out what/where the bottleneck of
a large mail server is.
A client is running a huge mail server that we set up for them (running
qmail), but performance seems to be limited somewhere. Qmail has already
been optimized as far as it can go (big-todo
By the way,
In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS? Quite
often you'll find that DNS lookups are severely limiting the performance
of something like a mailing list. Make sure that the mail server itself
isn't
On Friday 08 June 2001 00:05, Jason Lim wrote:
> Thanks for your detailed reply.
>
> As reliability is not of great importance (only the mail queue will be
> there and no critical system files), I'd go for speed and cheap price.
> The client doesn't have the huge wads of cash for the optimal syste
r countries like Australia (not sure bout US).
BTW. was your mother headmistress of St. Paul before?
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "schemerz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 3:57 PM
Subje
On Wednesday 06 June 2001 10:51, Jason Lim wrote:
> Just so you know, this server is an:
> AMD K6-2 500Mhz, 128M-133Mhz, 2 UDMA100 drives (IBM), 10M bandwidth.
How much swap is being used? If you have any serious amount of mail being
delivered then having a mere 128M of RAM will seriously hurt p
ram
don't come cheap last time I checked... :-/
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
On Wednesday 06 J
On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Jason Lim wrote:
> I was wondering if there is a way to find out what/where the bottleneck of
> a large mail server is.
Look at vmstat.
vmstat can tell you about number of processeses waiting for run time,
amount of memory swapped to disk, blocks per second sent (and
received
On Thursday 07 June 2001 00:11, Jason Lim wrote:
> 05:51:18 up 5 days, 22:38, 1 user, load average: 6.60, 7.40, 6.51
> 119 processes: 106 sleeping, 11 running, 2 zombie, 0 stopped
> CPU states: 16.4% user, 18.3% system, 0.0% nice, 65.3% idle
> Mem:128236K total, 124348K used, 3888
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 6:43 AM
Subject: Re: Finding the Bottleneck
> On Wed, 6 Jun 2001, Jason Lim wrote:
>
> > I was wondering if there is a way to find out what/where the
bottleneck of
> > a l
PURELY for mail queue processing would help at all? Or would the
bottleneck then be shifted to NFS?
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 3:21 PM
Subje
ve hardware configuration is performing at it's
realistic limit?
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2001 3:42 AM
On Thursday 07 June 2001 20:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> I agree with you... it seems more and more likely that the Disks are
> the limiting factor here.
>
> I guess the next big thing to do would be to run some form of Raid
> (software or hardware) for the mail queue.
>
> Does anyone know of a cheap bu
On Thursday 07 June 2001 20:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> I agree with you... it seems more and more likely that the Disks are
> the limiting factor here.
>
> I guess the next big thing to do would be to run some form of Raid
> (software or hardware) for the mail queue.
>
> Does anyone know of a cheap but
k that the above hardware configuration is performing at it's
realistic limit?
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Russell Coker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday,
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
