On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 11:49:43AM +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
> > How large are the (individual) mailboxes you're hosting there?
>
> Most of them are max 500MB, but average use is much less. It's a little
> difficult to calculate because almost all POP users empty their mailbox.
> We did some report
> How large are the (individual) mailboxes you're hosting there?
Most of them are max 500MB, but average use is much less. It's a little
difficult to calculate because almost all POP users empty their mailbox.
We did some reports a few months ago where it showed that average mailbox
size for POP u
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM, Cor Bosman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Just in case I understand you wrong: You're serving 20k concurrent
> > users with 1 (one) server?
>
> Wait, I think I misunderstood you. We do not have just 1 imap server.
> We have 30 imap servers (a little overdimensio
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 09:42:10AM +0200, Cor Bosman wrote:
> Actually..it's 2 NetApp 6070s. But those are not just simple servers.
> They are very expensive, dedicated NFS boxes each taking up a full rack
> doing multiple terrabytes each, connected with multiple gbit links.
>
> It's 99.99% maildi
> Just in case I understand you wrong: You're serving 20k concurrent
> users with 1 (one) server?
Wait, I think I misunderstood you. We do not have just 1 imap server.
We have 30 imap servers (a little overdimensioned at this time).
I was just showing the graph of one of them. The others look sim
> > This specific server is a dual core 2.8ghz xeon with hyperthreading
> > running on FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE. We have over 1 million mailboxes, with about
> > 75,000 daily active users. At peak maybe 20,000 concurrent, in a mix of
> > webmail and direct imap. (no POP, thats handled by different s
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:42 PM, Cor Bosman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It may be good to list your hardware, user count, mailbox backend, and
> > file system information, as I suppose that this kind of improvement is not
> > universal.
>
> This specific server is a dual core 2.8ghz xeon wi
Very persuasive. So what is the conversion process like tp go to 1.1?
Cor Bosman wrote:
We've been running 1.1 on about half of our servers for about a week now.
Ive mailed before that I was pleasantly surprised by its better use of
resources. Here's a graph showing that fact. Server load in the
> > We've been running 1.1 on about half of our servers for about a week now.
> > Ive mailed before that I was pleasantly surprised by its better use of
> > resources. Here's a graph showing that fact. Server load in the last 10
> > days.
>
> It may be good to list your hardware, user count, mailb
Cor Bosman wrote:
> We've been running 1.1 on about half of our servers for about a week now.
> Ive mailed before that I was pleasantly surprised by its better use of
> resources. Here's a graph showing that fact. Server load in the last 10
> days.
It may be good to list your hardware, user count
We've been running 1.1 on about half of our servers for about a week now.
Ive mailed before that I was pleasantly surprised by its better use of
resources. Here's a graph showing that fact. Server load in the last 10
days.
http://uwimages.smugmug.com/photos/286355874_9FNp2-L.png
Cor
11 matches
Mail list logo
