Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Dave Watkins wrote:
>
>
>>The reason i2c won't work on these boards is because they use IPMI
>>rather than i2c and have a BMC on them which does much more in the way
>>of management than desktop type boards
>>
>>
>
>Well, if it is anyt
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:35, "Lucas Albers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As long as the machine is fixed within four days of a problem we don't
> > need
> > more than one. Email can be delayed, it's something you have to get used
> > to.
>
> Machines are cheap enough, wouldn't it be reasonable to
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:35, martin f krafft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.14.1525
+0200]:
> > Or we can do it in two, with capacity to spare AND no downtime.
>
> I would definitely vote for two systems, but for high-availability,
>
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:19, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Increasing the number of machines increases the probability of one
> > machine failing for any given time period. Also it makes it more
> > difficult to debug problems as you can't always be certain of which
> > machine was inv
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 07:18, Stephane Bortzmeyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm currently writing a proposal for a webmail service for, say, 50
> 000 to 500 000 users. I'm looking for description of existing "big
50K isn't big by today's standards.
An ISP I used to work for has something like 1,3
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I do not need general advice (such as "Postfix rules, Exim sucks" or
"Maildirs are faster") but actual description of existing and running
systems. Googling seems inefficient for that purpose and I presume
that many interesting papers are only in closed and paying confere
## Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> SAN and NAS are best avoided IMHO.
We put our mailboxes (about 100GB per server with cyrus IMAP)
in a fibrechannel-connected SAN (there're some EMC cabinets in
out server rooms), wich runs fairly well. You have to look
for changing LUNs (this might be reall
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:56:21PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
> The machines were all running 2.4.2x last time I was there, but they
> may be moving to 2.6.x now.
All the stores, relays and proxies are still on 2.4.x, but the LDAP
servers are now on 2.6.x (mainly because I could, not for any tech
Le vendredi 15 octobre 2004 à 12:08, Paul Dwerryhouse écrivait:
> Seven backend mailstores now, and I really want an eighth, but can't get
> anyone to pay for it.
Your backend mailstores are running NFS on Linux 2.6 ? Don't you have
any performance problems ?
Do you know how many mails you recei
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:30:56PM +0200, Aurélien Beaujean wrote:
> Your backend mailstores are running NFS on Linux 2.6 ? Don't you have
> any performance problems ?
We don't use NFS. Only the LDAP servers are using 2.6.x - everything
else is still on 2.4.
> Do you know how many mails you recei
Hello all,
I have two linux debian systems, one with kernel 2.2.18, another with 2.4.20.
Both kernels have option "IP: multicasting" DISABLED. However
multicasting is working and both systems answered if I ping 224.0.0.1,
and multicast programs are working! The question is: why this option
"IP: mul
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 13:35, "Lucas Albers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Machines are cheap enough, wouldn't it be reasonable to throw in
> > redundancy? Unless having 2 machines adds unneccessary complexity to the
> > setup.
>
> Better to have one good
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
> You seem to have entirely misunderstood what I wrote.
And I think I had misunderstood you, but your message cleared things up...
> Having four engines on a jet rather than two or three should not be expected
> to give any increase in reliability. Havi
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> ## Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > SAN and NAS are best avoided IMHO.
NAS is *always* best avoided on anything that has "mail" in the description,
IMHO.
> We put our mailboxes (about 100GB per server with cyrus IMAP)
> in a fibrecha
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1448 +0200]:
> Just to make it clear, I am advocating two *good* machines.
ENOSUCHTHING wrt it not failing.
> > Which is another good reason for not having such redundant
> > servers.
>
> Now, that is a bit too far. The cor
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1455 +0200]:
> In other words, your point is not that two MX are not more
> "resilient to failure", but rather that the work of administrating
> them is not worth the gain in resilience ?
This is frequently a problem people do
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1448 +0200]:
> > Just to make it clear, I am advocating two *good* machines.
>
> ENOSUCHTHING wrt it not failing.
Nor did I intend to imply that they wouldn't fail :)
> > > Which
also sprach Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1512 +0200]:
> And it better be live, or it gets wy easier for it to fall
> out-of-sync with what was done to the primary machine.
That's a policy issue.
--
Please do not CC me when replying to lists; I read them!
.''
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 18:41:06 +1000, Russell wrote in message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 03:19, Arnt Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Increasing the number of machines increases the probability of one
> > > machine failing for any given time period. Also it makes it more
>
Check to see if the kernel switches are on (1) or off (0):
find /proc/net -name '*cast*
find /proc/sys -name '*cast*'
On 15/10/04 15:20 +0400, Oleg Butorin wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have two linux debian systems, one with kernel 2.2.18, another with
> 2.4.20.
> Both kernels have option "IP: m
Just setup Postfix as an MTA on your MDA server with TLS enabled.
This may seem complicated, however it can be fairly simple.
You can have all email scanned/relayed through a gateway mail-server.
The internal MTA can be firewalled to prevent other connections from using it.
Additionally only dn
Actually, this set of find commands will work better:
find /proc/net -name '*cast* -print -exec cat {} ';'
find /proc/sys -name '*cast* -print -exec cat {} ';'
On 15/10/04 10:36 -0400, Theodore Knab wrote:
> Check to see if the kernel switches are on (1) or off (0):
>
> find /proc/net -name '*c
The main purpose is identify periodically boxes on an internal private
network which cause very high traffic, due to worms, virus and so.
A per-IP simple report a la mrtg could be nice.
--
Francesco P. Lovergine
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". T
also sprach Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1702 +0200]:
> The main purpose is identify periodically boxes on an internal private
> network which cause very high traffic, due to worms, virus and so.
> A per-IP simple report a la mrtg could be nice.
apt-cache search ip acco
Hi
You might like the bandwidthd Debian package which is at
http://fjortis.info/pub/debian/
Gerhard
Francesco P. Lovergine wrote:
The main purpose is identify periodically boxes on an internal private
network which cause very high traffic, due to worms, virus and so.
A per-IP simple report a la
## Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > We put our mailboxes (about 100GB per server with cyrus IMAP)
> > in a fibrechannel-connected SAN (there're some EMC cabinets in
> That's how it is usually done with Cyrus IMAP (since upstream makes it quite
> clear that you are either stupid
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 04:12:17PM +0100, Gerhard Venter wrote:
>
> You might like the bandwidthd Debian package which is at
> http://fjortis.info/pub/debian/
>
Mmm, yes thanks quite near to what I was looking for, ntop is
unfortunately too much complicated for a naive user. If you are
yet look
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 05:09:02PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
> also sprach Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1702 +0200]:
> > The main purpose is identify periodically boxes on an internal private
> > network which cause very high traffic, due to worms, virus and so.
> >
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Francesco P. Lovergine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1702 +0200]:
The main purpose is identify periodically boxes on an internal private
network which cause very high traffic, due to worms, virus and so.
A per-IP simple report a la mrtg could be nice.
also sprach Alex Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1742 +0200]:
> The best ive seen was not in debian when i chacked. Its an ipacc
> but patched to lazyly report to a mysql database. This way the
> measurement doesnt take a lot of resources in a really demanding
> environment
Yeah, except fo
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> So, now we would like Russel to explain why he does not like SAN.
He probably doesn't advocate using SAN instead of local disks if you do not
have a good reason to use SAN. If that's it, I *do* agree with him. Don't
use SANs just for the hec
## Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > So, now we would like Russel to explain why he does not like SAN.
> He probably doesn't advocate using SAN instead of local disks if you do not
> have a good reason to use SAN. If that's it, I *do* agree with him. Don't
> use SANs just for
martin f krafft wrote:
also sprach Alex Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.15.1742 +0200]:
The best ive seen was not in debian when i chacked. Its an ipacc
but patched to lazyly report to a mysql database. This way the
measurement doesnt take a lot of resources in a really demanding
environmen
I'm not an expert on MC, but I'd think 224.0.0.1 would be routed to your
default route. Then the pkt would get multicasted and you would receve
multiple responces.
IIRC kernel level MC support is only for if you want to be on Mbone, not
if you want to use it as a client/server.
--- Oleg Butorin
Hi there, At the moment we are running apache 1.3.x on a debian woody
box with PHP/MySQL enabled for selected sites and also a shared verisign
cert (also for selected sites).
At the moment we store the config in MySQL and then have a script that
writes lots of config files to a conf/ dir (one f
On Thu, Sep 30, 2004 at 12:12:30AM +1000, Donovan Baarda wrote:
> > Le mercredi 29 septembre 2004 ? 12:37, Gavin Hamill ?crivait:
> > > My question is... how does dpkg know that I need to load the megaraid
> > > module in the initrd so the system can mount / for init to boot the
> > > machine? I've
> the basic rule of thumb is: "if i'm likely to need it to boot or if it's
> essential for what the machine is supposed to do, then it gets compiled
in to
> the kernel. otherwise as a module".
>
> craig
Agree completely. In or case, we also compile in the 3ware RAID stuff, a
few common NIC drive
37 matches
Mail list logo
