Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 10:07:15AM +0100, John Hedges wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:34:07PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' > > von Bidder wrote: > > > Herre is what happens: A spammer uses my email address as the > > > sender

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 05:34:07PM +, Gerrit Pape wrote: > On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > > Herre is what happens: A spammer uses my email address as the sender address > > in spam frequently. > > > So, I sometimes suddenly have 2000 ne

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 05:59, Theodore Knab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > RAM is always not the answer with 32Bit machines. You can cause bounce > buffers with too much RAM. The sweet spot for Linux on a 32Bit platform > seems to be 4GB of RAM. I had 10GB of RAM in a Courier IMAP server and the > serve

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

I highly recommend reiserfs for mail system usage. Also a Cyrus MURDER can scale quite well when properly built. 3 drives aren't going to get you very far but i'd think they'd do a bit better than what you're getting now, though i don't know about your RAID controller. As for MTA's I can't re

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

RAM is always not the answer with 32Bit machines. You can cause bounce buffers with too much RAM. The sweet spot for Linux on a 32Bit platform seems to be 4GB of RAM. I had 10GB of RAM in a Courier IMAP server and the server had problems releasing swap after a week. The kernel was compiled for 6

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

:) hehehe, Ok, i was just asking because there are some MTA's that can fit better in some environments than others. I like features of QMail, Postfix and Exim, but i hate others for an ISP environment. jonathan Marcin Owsiany wrote: On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:07:37PM +0200, Jonathan G - Mailin

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:07:37PM +0200, Jonathan G - Mailing Lists wrote: > Sorry, what's your MTA? Mine? On that particular machine it is qmail that does the deliveries (or rather, what is left of qmail after all the patching I've done). Marcin -- Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

Sorry, what's your MTA? jonathan Nate Duehr wrote: Marcin Owsiany wrote: Well, adding more disks to the setup is what I planned to do next. I just want to make sure that the performance I get from the _current_ setup is normal. Oh okay, sorry. Thought you were looking for a performance increas

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

Marcin Owsiany wrote: Well, adding more disks to the setup is what I planned to do next. I just want to make sure that the performance I get from the _current_ setup is normal. Oh okay, sorry. Thought you were looking for a performance increase. Nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > Herre is what happens: A spammer uses my email address as the sender address > in spam frequently. > So, I sometimes suddenly have 2000 new mails in my inbox :-( > So, that's my plea to everybody with big mai

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 09:49:27AM +0200, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > So, that's my plea to everybody with big mail installations: make your > frontend machines aware of what mail they are supposed to accept, so that > you never need to bounce. (Ok, some cases will still bounce:

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Thursday 09 September 2004 01.33, Ruth A. Kramer wrote: > Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > > On behalf of all joe-job victims: Whatever you do, *please* do it in a > > way that allows you to know whether mail is going to be delivered at > > the front-end incoming SMTP server. (shoul

Re[2]: High volume mail handling architecture

Hello Maykel, Thursday, September 9, 2004, 15:59:02, you wrote: MM> Could you send your regexes, 90% of viruses stopped by regexes sounds MM> interesting. In fact most of them are stopped by general regexps rejecting some dangerous attachments, so only those with .exe and .zip (which I can't blo

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 18:44, Marcin Owsiany <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:03:20AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > You have to either be doing something very intensive or very wrong to > > need more than one server for 20K users. Last time I did this I got 250K > > users per

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 15:32:04 +0200, Marek wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Citát "Ruth A. Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > > > On behalf of all joe-job victims: Whatever you do, *please* do it > > > in a way that allows you to know whether m

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

> For the same reason I have some regexp patterns build into postfix body_checks > for most common viruses. Postfix rejects these mails immediately. This usually > catch about 90% of viruses, so I save a lot of CPU in virus checking of > incoming mail... Could you send your regexes, 90% of viruses

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

Citát "Ruth A. Kramer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > > On behalf of all joe-job victims: Whatever you do, *please* do it in a way > > that allows you to know whether mail is going to be delivered at the > > front-end incoming SMTP server. (should be trivial i

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote: > On behalf of all joe-job victims: Whatever you do, *please* do it in a way > that allows you to know whether mail is going to be delivered at the > front-end incoming SMTP server. (should be trivial if your user database is > in LDAP or some SQL db or w

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:43:21AM -0600, Nate Duehr wrote: > > On Sep 9, 2004, at 2:44 AM, Marcin Owsiany wrote: > > > >More than 90% of the disk transactions are on the (logical) disk where > >mail is stored. The only processes which touch that disk, are qmail > >delivery processes (qmail handed

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Sep 9, 2004, at 2:44 AM, Marcin Owsiany wrote: More than 90% of the disk transactions are on the (logical) disk where mail is stored. The only processes which touch that disk, are qmail delivery processes (qmail handed mail by another SMTP-IN box: 0.8 local deliveries per second) and courierpop3

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

Hi Marcin, How many files do you have in a single directory? > 100 ? Which filesystem are you using? You may want to try playimg with reiserfs... Regards Andrew Marcin Owsiany wrote: On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:03:20AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: You have to either be doing something very intensi

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:03:20AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > You have to either be doing something very intensive or very wrong to need > more than one server for 20K users. Last time I did this I got 250K users > per server, and I believe that I could have easily doubled that if I was > al

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Tuesday 07 September 2004 14.38, Maykel Moya wrote: > I'm looking for documentation which help me to design a failover, > redundant and scalable mail system to handle 20K users with plans to > scale soon to about 50K. 20k or 50k users are not unheard of on a single server (obviously you'll nee

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Tue, 7 Sep 2004 23:48, Theo Hoogerheide <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Try looking for a netapp or something else for central datastorage and a > loadbalancer.. If you have a Netapp then you have to deal with Linux NFS issues which aren't fun. If you have a cluster of storage machines and front

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

Maykel Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have already choosed the software components: postfix, ldap and we ar > discussing about dovecot vs. cyrus as imap server. describes some Ideas for setting up a large Mailcluster. regards Johannes -- To UN

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Tue, 2004-09-07 at 14:38, Maykel Moya wrote: > I'm looking for documentation which help me to design a failover, > redundant and scalable mail system to handle 20K users with plans to > scale soon to about 50K. > > We have already choosed the software components: postfix, ldap and we ar > discu

Re: High volume mail handling architecture

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 08:38:56AM -0400, Maykel Moya wrote: > I'm looking for documentation which help me to design a failover, > redundant and scalable mail system to handle 20K users with plans to > scale soon to about 50K. > > We have already choosed the software components: postfix, ldap and

High volume mail handling architecture

I'm looking for documentation which help me to design a failover, redundant and scalable mail system to handle 20K users with plans to scale soon to about 50K. We have already choosed the software components: postfix, ldap and we ar discussing about dovecot vs. cyrus as imap server. Regards, mike