Am 18:43 2003-04-15 -0700 hat Daniel Brown geschrieben:
>
>Wrote Randy Kramer:
>
>> On Monday 14 April 2003 11:44 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
>> > On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:38, Michelle Konzack wrote:
>> > > I mean, Each Client has 250 Mbyte DiskSpace for ftp,
>> > > http,
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 11:43 am, Daniel Brown wrote:
> > > > I mean, Each Client has 250 Mbyte DiskSpace for ftp,
> > > > http, mail and LOGS and can not use more !!!
> > > >
> > > > But 200-300 partitions on ONE DISK ???
> Using partitions or loop devi
Wrote Randy Kramer:
> On Monday 14 April 2003 11:44 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:38, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > > I mean, Each Client has 250 Mbyte DiskSpace for ftp,
> > > http, mail and LOGS and can not use more !!!
> > >
> > >
On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:35, Randy Kramer wrote:
> On Monday 14 April 2003 11:44 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
> > On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:38, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > > I mean, Each Client has 250 Mbyte DiskSpace for ftp,
> > > http, mail and LOGS and can not use more !!!
On Monday 14 April 2003 11:44 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:38, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > I mean, Each Client has 250 Mbyte DiskSpace for ftp,
> > http, mail and LOGS and can not use more !!!
> >
> > But 200-300 partitions on ONE
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 13:38, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> I mean, Each Client has 250 Mbyte DiskSpace for ftp,
> http, mail and LOGS and can not use more !!!
>
> But 200-300 partitions on ONE DISK ???
Restricting web, ftp, and mail usage by disk quotas is
Hello Mark,
Am 02:20 2003-04-03 -0500 hat Mark Bucciarelli geschrieben:
>
>On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:58 pm, junkyjunk.com wrote:
>
>> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500
>> megs on a busy mail day.
>
>hmmm, from the two responses i got, sounds like we could run ma
hello Tomàs,
Am 10:15 2003-04-03 +0200 hat Tomàs Núñez Lirola geschrieben:
>
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>I disagree.
>If no user can fill up the disk, logs can. At least I'd put /var/log in a
I agree, because for some years I have had a problem with some Gigs of Logs.
>d
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 05:18, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > It should be easy enough to implement with LVM or EVMS. Why not try it
> > out and see what happens?
>
> I might do just that. If you'll help me devise some nice bonnie++ tests
> for the benchmark :)
I suggest that you first do some tests with
On Sat, 5 Apr 2003 05:18, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > It should be easy enough to implement with LVM or EVMS. Why not try it
> > out and see what happens?
>
> I might do just that. If you'll help me devise some nice bonnie++ tests
> for the benchmark :)
I suggest that you first do some tests with
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:14:40AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:52, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Something just occurred to me. A lot of systems will have one (logical)
> > disk, either physical or as a RAID-5 or RAID-1 set.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice if you could inter
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 09:14:40AM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:52, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> > Something just occurred to me. A lot of systems will have one (logical)
> > disk, either physical or as a RAID-5 or RAID-1 set.
> >
> > Wouldn't it be nice if you could inter
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:19, Jones, Steven wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:29, Jones, Steven wrote:
> > umcompaq dl320s for 1 wont do it. Look at some bioses, i would be
>
> Compaq is history.
>
> OK, HP whatever, the dl320 is a current model, it doesnt have the
> capability to boot anything but 0x
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 22:40, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> I'd guess that if your machine starts thrashing, you have other problems
> than worrying about swap performance. On a server, swap usage should imho
> be the rare exception. On a desktop, you'll see more swapping, with
> kde/gn
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 12:19, Jones, Steven wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:29, Jones, Steven wrote:
> > umcompaq dl320s for 1 wont do it. Look at some bioses, i would be
>
> Compaq is history.
>
> OK, HP whatever, the dl320 is a current model, it doesnt have the
> capability to boot anything but 0x
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 22:40, Adrian 'Dagurashibanipal' von Bidder wrote:
> I'd guess that if your machine starts thrashing, you have other problems
> than worrying about swap performance. On a server, swap usage should imho
> be the rare exception. On a desktop, you'll see more swapping, with
> kde/gn
On Thursday 03 April 2003 21:08, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:46, Andrew Miehs wrote:
> > hmmm.. Isn't it better to try and have swap in the middle of the disk?
> > That way you always have about the same access time? Problem is, just
> > because I
>
> That may be the case for spora
On Thursday 03 April 2003 21:08, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:46, Andrew Miehs wrote:
> > hmmm.. Isn't it better to try and have swap in the middle of the disk?
> > That way you always have about the same access time? Problem is, just
> > because I
>
> That may be the case for spora
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 02:11:00PM +1000, Jeremy Lunn wrote:
>
> I'd consider it to be generally a bad idea to have user writable
> directories on the same partition as /. Therefore I always make sure
> that I at least have partitions for:
> /
> /tmp
> /home
> /var
Heh. That's the same scheme I
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:58:03PM -0600, junkyjunk.com wrote:
> 50 domains on a 60gig disk should be NO problem. There should not even
> be a need to partition the disk, except for / and swap. Why are you
> trying to use partitions?
>
> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably aroun
On Fri, Apr 04, 2003 at 02:11:00PM +1000, Jeremy Lunn wrote:
>
> I'd consider it to be generally a bad idea to have user writable
> directories on the same partition as /. Therefore I always make sure
> that I at least have partitions for:
> /
> /tmp
> /home
> /var
Heh. That's the same scheme I
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:29, Jones, Steven wrote:
> umcompaq dl320s for 1 wont do it. Look at some bioses, i would be
Compaq is history.
OK, HP whatever, the dl320 is a current model, it doesnt have the capability
to boot anything but 0x80 without a floppy.
> pleased if you could point me at so
On Wed, Apr 02, 2003 at 09:58:03PM -0600, junkyjunk.com wrote:
> 50 domains on a 60gig disk should be NO problem. There should not even
> be a need to partition the disk, except for / and swap. Why are you
> trying to use partitions?
>
> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably aroun
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:29, Jones, Steven wrote:
> umcompaq dl320s for 1 wont do it. Look at some bioses, i would be
Compaq is history.
> pleased if you could point me at some machines that can, ive not found one
A cheap clone motherboard that I bought from a local computer fair three years
a
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:29, Jones, Steven wrote:
> umcompaq dl320s for 1 wont do it. Look at some bioses, i would be
Compaq is history.
OK, HP whatever, the dl320 is a current model, it doesnt have the capability
to boot anything but 0x80 without a floppy.
> pleased if you could point me at so
better to assume the worst and plan accordingly.
regards
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Russell Coker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2003 11:12
To: Jones, Steven
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning a Web Server
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:00, Jones, Steven
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:52, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Something just occurred to me. A lot of systems will have one (logical)
> disk, either physical or as a RAID-5 or RAID-1 set.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if you could interleave multiple filesystems on the
> same block device? I.e. instead of giving o
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:00, Jones, Steven wrote:
> You cant normally boot off software raid if the primary disk fails on
> Intel.
Sure you can. Modern BIOSs have options for booting from a secondary disk.
If you setup LILO correctly then the most you should have to do is
reconfigure the BIOS to
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 09:29, Jones, Steven wrote:
> umcompaq dl320s for 1 wont do it. Look at some bioses, i would be
Compaq is history.
> pleased if you could point me at some machines that can, ive not found one
A cheap clone motherboard that I bought from a local computer fair three years
a
better to assume the worst and plan accordingly.
regards
Steven
-Original Message-
From: Russell Coker [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2003 11:12
To: Jones, Steven
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Partitioning a Web Server
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:00, Jones, Steven wrote
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 06:52, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Something just occurred to me. A lot of systems will have one (logical)
> disk, either physical or as a RAID-5 or RAID-1 set.
>
> Wouldn't it be nice if you could interleave multiple filesystems on the
> same block device? I.e. instead of giving o
On Fri, 4 Apr 2003 07:00, Jones, Steven wrote:
> You cant normally boot off software raid if the primary disk fails on
> Intel.
Sure you can. Modern BIOSs have options for booting from a secondary disk.
If you setup LILO correctly then the most you should have to do is
reconfigure the BIOS to
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2003 7:22
To: Jones, Steven
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning a Web Server
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:20, Jones, Steven wrote:
> I would strongly disagree, partitioning is very important. Logging should
> be separated out so that a ful
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:28:36AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Partitioning your data across disks is important, but IMHO partitioning
> a single disk is useless. Enforcing quota by splitting a disk in two,
> with all the seek time it wastes, is an unreasonably expensive way to do
> it.
PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, 4 April 2003 7:22
To: Jones, Steven
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Partitioning a Web Server
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:20, Jones, Steven wrote:
> I would strongly disagree, partitioning is very important. Logging should
> be separated out so that a full /var won
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 09:28:36AM +0200, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> Partitioning your data across disks is important, but IMHO partitioning
> a single disk is useless. Enforcing quota by splitting a disk in two,
> with all the seek time it wastes, is an unreasonably expensive way to do
> it.
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:46, Andrew Miehs wrote:
> hmmm.. Isn't it better to try and have swap in the middle of the disk? That
> way you always have about the same access time? Problem is, just because I
That may be the case for sporadic swap access (this is really difficult to
benchmark however).
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:20, Jones, Steven wrote:
> I would strongly disagree, partitioning is very important. Logging should
> be separated out so that a full /var wont stop logging in.
How does a full /var stop people logging in? I just did a quick test and
/bin/login permits logging in for non-r
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 17:46, Andrew Miehs wrote:
> hmmm.. Isn't it better to try and have swap in the middle of the disk? That
> way you always have about the same access time? Problem is, just because I
That may be the case for sporadic swap access (this is really difficult to
benchmark however).
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 14:20, Jones, Steven wrote:
> I would strongly disagree, partitioning is very important. Logging should
> be separated out so that a full /var wont stop logging in.
How does a full /var stop people logging in? I just did a quick test and
/bin/login permits logging in for non-r
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:24, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
> If you say partitioning wastes a lot of seek time (which I did not consider
> when I decided partitioning), I think I should evaluate if it's worth to
> waste this time for security or if (as it seems, and as you say) it's not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I said I'd trust on kernel quota, but not on proftd and qmail quota.
Anyway, in kernel quota there is some human factor (you can change quotas
size) and human factor is not reliable (even less if I'm this factor :P).
If you say partitioning wastes a
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:15:51AM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
> If no user can fill up the disk, logs can. At least I'd put /var/log in a
> different partition, but anyway I'd partition the disk just in case quota
> systems fail. I think it's not a good idea to trust on ftp and mail s
On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 11:24, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
> If you say partitioning wastes a lot of seek time (which I did not consider
> when I decided partitioning), I think I should evaluate if it's worth to
> waste this time for security or if (as it seems, and as you say) it's not.
I think co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I disagree.
If no user can fill up the disk, logs can. At least I'd put /var/log in a
different partition, but anyway I'd partition the disk just in case quota
systems fail. I think it's not a good idea to trust on ftp and mail servers
to manage quo
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:11:46PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Are those partition numbers in order of location on disk?
>
> Most hard drives have the low cylinder numbers on the outside of the disk
> (which has slightly lower average seek times and much better bulk transfer
> rates). You gen
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 05:11 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:10, Mark Constable wrote:
> > /dev/hda5 / 200Mb
> > /dev/hda6 /usr 1Gb
> > /dev/hda7 /var 4Gb
> > /dev/hda8 /home (the rest)
> > /dev/hda9 swap 200Mb
> > /dev/hda10+ (sizes extracted from /home)
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I said I'd trust on kernel quota, but not on proftd and qmail quota.
Anyway, in kernel quota there is some human factor (you can change quotas
size) and human factor is not reliable (even less if I'm this factor :P).
If you say partitioning wastes a
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 04:20:49PM +1200, Jones, Steven wrote:
> I would strongly disagree, partitioning is very important. Logging should be
> separated out so that a full /var wont stop logging in.
Even with a full /, /usr and /var you can log in to a Debian system
IIRC.
Partitioning your
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:58 pm, junkyjunk.com wrote:
> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500
> megs on a busy mail day.
hmmm, from the two responses i got, sounds like we could run many more
sites on this box. 100? 200? if disk space and bandwidth is no
proble
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:10, Mark Constable wrote:
> /dev/hda5 / 200Mb
> /dev/hda6 /usr 1Gb
> /dev/hda7 /var 4Gb
> /dev/hda8 /home (the rest)
> /dev/hda9 swap 200Mb
> /dev/hda10+ (sizes extracted from /home)
Are those partition numbers in order of location on disk?
Most har
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 10:15:51AM +0200, Tomàs Núñez Lirola wrote:
> If no user can fill up the disk, logs can. At least I'd put /var/log in a
> different partition, but anyway I'd partition the disk just in case quota
> systems fail. I think it's not a good idea to trust on ftp and mail s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I disagree.
If no user can fill up the disk, logs can. At least I'd put /var/log in a
different partition, but anyway I'd partition the disk just in case quota
systems fail. I think it's not a good idea to trust on ftp and mail servers
to manage quo
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 05:11:46PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> Are those partition numbers in order of location on disk?
>
> Most hard drives have the low cylinder numbers on the outside of the disk
> (which has slightly lower average seek times and much better bulk transfer
> rates). You gen
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 05:11 pm, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:10, Mark Constable wrote:
> > /dev/hda5 / 200Mb
> > /dev/hda6 /usr 1Gb
> > /dev/hda7 /var 4Gb
> > /dev/hda8 /home (the rest)
> > /dev/hda9 swap 200Mb
> > /dev/hda10+ (sizes extracted from /home)
>
>
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2003 at 04:20:49PM +1200, Jones, Steven wrote:
> I would strongly disagree, partitioning is very important. Logging should be
> separated out so that a full /var wont stop logging in.
Even with a full /, /usr and /var you can log in to a Debian system
IIRC.
Partitioning your
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 10:58 pm, junkyjunk.com wrote:
> 50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500
> megs on a busy mail day.
hmmm, from the two responses i got, sounds like we could run many more
sites on this box. 100? 200? if disk space and bandwidth is no
proble
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:08 pm, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> I'm going to be setting up a web server this Friday, and I'm trying to
> work out how to partition the disk. The plan is to use apache
> ...
> First, the box is a 60G 10,000 RPM disk PIII 750MHz, 512MB RAM. Does
> this sound reasonable?
>
> I
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 15:10, Mark Constable wrote:
> /dev/hda5 / 200Mb
> /dev/hda6 /usr 1Gb
> /dev/hda7 /var 4Gb
> /dev/hda8 /home (the rest)
> /dev/hda9 swap 200Mb
> /dev/hda10+ (sizes extracted from /home)
Are those partition numbers in order of location on disk?
Most har
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2003 4:15
To: Mark Bucciarelli
Cc: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Partitioning a Web Server
50 domains on a 60gig disk should be NO problem. There should not even
be a need to partition the disk, except for / and swap. Why are you
trying to use
so 1 gig seems heaps.
there will be logs so /var/log could be seperate as well, say 3 gig.
regards
S
-Original Message-
From: Mark Bucciarelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2003 3:30
To: debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Subject: Partitioning a Web Server
I'm goi
50 domains on a 60gig disk should be NO problem. There should not even
be a need to partition the disk, except for / and swap. Why are you
trying to use partitions?
50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500 megs on
a busy mail day. You are wasting your time worrying about
I'm going to be setting up a web server this Friday, and I'm trying to
work out how to partition the disk. The plan is to use apache
mod_v_host to serve up to 50 domains and will also be an email
server. PHP + MySQL also. It's expected that most of the domains
will be small fry, probably mos
On Thu, 3 Apr 2003 01:08 pm, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> I'm going to be setting up a web server this Friday, and I'm trying to
> work out how to partition the disk. The plan is to use apache
> ...
> First, the box is a 60G 10,000 RPM disk PIII 750MHz, 512MB RAM. Does
> this sound reasonable?
>
> I
PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2003 4:15
To: Mark Bucciarelli
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Partitioning a Web Server
50 domains on a 60gig disk should be NO problem. There should not even
be a need to partition the disk, except for / and swap. Why are you
trying to use partitions?
50
so 1 gig seems heaps.
there will be logs so /var/log could be seperate as well, say 3 gig.
regards
S
-Original Message-
From: Mark Bucciarelli [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2003 3:30
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Partitioning a Web Server
I'm going to be se
50 domains on a 60gig disk should be NO problem. There should not even
be a need to partition the disk, except for / and swap. Why are you
trying to use partitions?
50 domains with web and mail should run you probably around 500 megs on
a busy mail day. You are wasting your time worrying about
I'm going to be setting up a web server this Friday, and I'm trying to
work out how to partition the disk. The plan is to use apache
mod_v_host to serve up to 50 domains and will also be an email
server. PHP + MySQL also. It's expected that most of the domains
will be small fry, probably mos
68 matches
Mail list logo
