> > does anybody know some webmail system for debian?
Just remember there is both IMAP and POP.
With webmail this is important. IMAP is more efficient than POP.
With IMAP, the webmail client will grap the mail headers first.
When users click on the mail to view, the webmail client will send
a
also sprach Matt Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.02.09.0151 +0100]:
> Well I have a /29 subnet - what I mean is that BT offer no way to
> have say a DMZ next to the router with a firewall (with a /30) and
> the other /30 routed via the firewall device. That where the layer
> 2 firewall comes in han
If you fully understand how to compile the kernel and know all the devices
your system needs, it might be easier to get the source from kernel.org.
This way you only need to deal with one package.
linux-2.4.17.tar.gz
I don't understand what the advantage of using the kernel-source from
the De
Hi,
Okay... for those of you following the previous RAID discussion... I
bought the 3ware cards.
Each server has 4 40G hard disks (identical). What RAID level/config do
you suggest?
Main usage is web/database/mail server (the usual hosting setup). Disk
performance isn't THAT important, but relia
I'd go with Raid5 personally...
it really depends also on your monetary needs, and how often you do
backups.
-lev
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Okay... for those of you following the previous RAID discussion... I
> bought the 3ware cards.
>
> Each server has 4 40G hard disks
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:19:17AM -0500, Theodore Knab wrote:
> If you fully understand how to compile the kernel and know all the devices
> your system needs, it might be easier to get the source from kernel.org.
> This way you only need to deal with one package.
>
> linux-2.4.17.tar.gz
>
>
With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk
failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies.
Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
Backups are done daily, but the data is sent to a central backup server,
so it takes a while to pull the releve
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk
> failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies.
> Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
again, it really depends on your monetary capabilities, and how mu
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
>
> > With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk
> > failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies.
> > Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
>
> again, it really depends on your monetary capabilities
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 22:38, Jason Lim wrote:
> Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs.
>
> On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also 80Gs,
> with 1 spare HD for rebuilding.
>
> The question becomes... which provides more performance and is mo
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> Disk space is not a major consideration: this is not a fileserver. It is a
> webserver, so we're looking at more sporadic random small file reads. I
> know its not likely to happen (that is, that more than 1 disk dies at a
> time), but I want to get the ser
> > Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs.
> >
> > On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also
80Gs,
> > with 1 spare HD for rebuilding.
> >
> > The question becomes... which provides more performance and is more
> > reliable?
>
> RAID10 will give
> RAID5:
>
> the "spare" is distributed over all of the disks...in the case of 4
disks,
> one of the disks can be thought of as a spare, which leaves you with 3 *
> 40 = 120 GB.
>
> depending on the failure type, this is your outcome:
Um... the 3ware card has the ability to mark 1 drive as a "spa
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 23:09, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also
> 80Gs,
> > > with 1 spare HD for rebuilding.
> > >
> > > The question becomes... which provides mor
> >
> > The CPU won't be handling this... the 3ware RAID card (hardware) will
> > perform the parity calculations, so RAID 5 won't cause that type of
> > slowdown due to additional CPU utilization.
>
> Mmm, this is one of the rare IDE RAID cards that are true hardware RAID.
> But you still have o
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> does anybody know some webmail system for debian?
Try twig
http://twig.screwdriver.net/
Yours Tony.
/*
* "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the
* same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
* --Albert Einstein
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:14:32PM -0800, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> err, unless I'm mistaken:
>
> RAID10:
> mirrored system = total/2 = 80
> striped system = single * 2 = 80
>
> combined that gives you a mirrored & striped "drive".
>
> this gives you 80GB total
correct. raid10 gives "n/2" capacity
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 06:34, Jason Lim wrote:
> Okay... for those of you following the previous RAID discussion... I
> bought the 3ware cards.
>
> Each server has 4 40G hard disks (identical). What RAID level/config do
> you suggest?
> Main usage is web/database/mail server (the usual hosting setup)
> > does anybody know some webmail system for debian?
Just remember there is both IMAP and POP.
With webmail this is important. IMAP is more efficient than POP.
With IMAP, the webmail client will grap the mail headers first.
When users click on the mail to view, the webmail client will send
a
also sprach Matt Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002.02.09.0151 +0100]:
> Well I have a /29 subnet - what I mean is that BT offer no way to
> have say a DMZ next to the router with a firewall (with a /30) and
> the other /30 routed via the firewall device. That where the layer
> 2 firewall comes in hand
If you fully understand how to compile the kernel and know all the devices
your system needs, it might be easier to get the source from kernel.org.
This way you only need to deal with one package.
linux-2.4.17.tar.gz
I don't understand what the advantage of using the kernel-source from
the Deb
Hi,
Okay... for those of you following the previous RAID discussion... I
bought the 3ware cards.
Each server has 4 40G hard disks (identical). What RAID level/config do
you suggest?
Main usage is web/database/mail server (the usual hosting setup). Disk
performance isn't THAT important, but reliab
I'd go with Raid5 personally...
it really depends also on your monetary needs, and how often you do
backups.
-lev
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Okay... for those of you following the previous RAID discussion... I
> bought the 3ware cards.
>
> Each server has 4 40G hard disks
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:19:17AM -0500, Theodore Knab wrote:
> If you fully understand how to compile the kernel and know all the devices
> your system needs, it might be easier to get the source from kernel.org.
> This way you only need to deal with one package.
>
> linux-2.4.17.tar.gz
>
> I
With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk
failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies.
Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
Backups are done daily, but the data is sent to a central backup server,
so it takes a while to pull the releven
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk
> failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies.
> Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
again, it really depends on your monetary capabilities, and how muc
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
>
> > With RAID5 and 4 disks... the RAID5 would not survive more than 1 disk
> > failing... that sort of gives me the heebie jeebies.
> > Thats why I thought RAID5 with 3 disks and 1 spare or RAID10.
>
> again, it really depends on your monetary capabilities,
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 22:38, Jason Lim wrote:
> Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs.
>
> On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also 80Gs,
> with 1 spare HD for rebuilding.
>
> The question becomes... which provides more performance and is mor
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Jason Lim wrote:
> Disk space is not a major consideration: this is not a fileserver. It is a
> webserver, so we're looking at more sporadic random small file reads. I
> know its not likely to happen (that is, that more than 1 disk dies at a
> time), but I want to get the serv
> > Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs.
> >
> > On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also
80Gs,
> > with 1 spare HD for rebuilding.
> >
> > The question becomes... which provides more performance and is more
> > reliable?
>
> RAID10 will give
> RAID5:
>
> the "spare" is distributed over all of the disks...in the case of 4
disks,
> one of the disks can be thought of as a spare, which leaves you with 3 *
> 40 = 120 GB.
>
> depending on the failure type, this is your outcome:
Um... the 3ware card has the ability to mark 1 drive as a "spar
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 23:09, Jason Lim wrote:
> > > Okay, as you said, with RAID10 and 4 40G HDs, usable space is 80Gs.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, with RAID5 and 3 40G HDs, usable space is also
> 80Gs,
> > > with 1 spare HD for rebuilding.
> > >
> > > The question becomes... which provides more
> >
> > The CPU won't be handling this... the 3ware RAID card (hardware) will
> > perform the parity calculations, so RAID 5 won't cause that type of
> > slowdown due to additional CPU utilization.
>
> Mmm, this is one of the rare IDE RAID cards that are true hardware RAID.
> But you still have on
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> does anybody know some webmail system for debian?
Try twig
http://twig.screwdriver.net/
Yours Tony.
/*
* "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the
* same level of thinking we were at when we created them."
* --Albert Einstein
*
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 02:14:32PM -0800, Lev Lvovsky wrote:
> err, unless I'm mistaken:
>
> RAID10:
> mirrored system = total/2 = 80
> striped system = single * 2 = 80
>
> combined that gives you a mirrored & striped "drive".
>
> this gives you 80GB total
correct. raid10 gives "n/2" capacity
35 matches
Mail list logo
