http://www.shub-internet.org/brad/FreeBSD/vinum.html
Sorry for the delay. It slipped my mind. :-)
=
-Chris Watson (316) 326-3862 | FreeBSD Consultant, FreeBSD Geek
Work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Open Sy
Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Aha. That explains it. You use HW raid. I wondered why you were
> > only doing 4 million mails for *30* boxes. Dan, is doing 500K, on a
> > completely idle box (cpu/ram/I/O wise), with vinum, Postfix, and RAID-0.
> > Ha
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Aha. That explains it. You use HW raid. I wondered why you were
> only doing 4 million mails for *30* boxes. Dan, is doing 500K, on a
> completely idle box (cpu/ram/I/O wise), with vinum, Postfix, and RAID-0.
> Have you seen brad knowles papers
ry 20, 2001 5:28 PM
To: Gordon Tetlow
Cc: Dan Phoenix; Jesper Skriver; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: qmail IO--qmail vs postfix competition
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Forgot to add info about the mailers. Each has a hardware raid controller
> with about 32MB of me
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> We use Alteon load balancers to take care of the balancing part, after
> that, qmail just works. We did add a hack for a deferral server option to
> qmail, meaning after 10 minutes of undeliverable mail (configurable), the
> mail gets tossed to another
Tetlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Jesper Skriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: qmail IO--qmail vs postfix competition
>
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Phoenix wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetl
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Phoenix wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
>
> > Yep, that's 4 million unique emails. Actually, I should qualify that, it
> > took 4 hours for the mail servers to accept and queue them. The outgoing
> > probably took a bit longer, but from the way the queu
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 15:13:11 -0800 (PST)
> From: Gordon Tetlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jesper Skriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Dan Phoenix <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: qmail IO--qmail v
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Well, as I said, these boxes are rather bored. I don't think the load
> reaches above 0.05. Most of the time is delivering mail trying to
> negotiate with destination hosts. I don't think that the mailers are IO
> bound, but I haven't really looked to f
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> Forgot to add info about the mailers. Each has a hardware raid controller
> with about 32MB of memory on the controller configured to RAID-1 2HDs for
> redundancy. Ideally, the mail never actually hits the disk but resides
> exclusively in memory.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Dan Phoenix wrote:
> Just curious how you pull this off?
> so 4 million/30=133 thousand emails per mail server roughly.
> So how do you distribute between the machines evenly into ezmlm as
> well?
We use Alteon load balancers to take care of the balancing part, after
tha
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Jesper Skriver wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:22:57AM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> > My company (online greeting cards) sent our 4 million emails in 4 hours
> > using a cluster of about 30 mailers with qmail on FreeBSD (old version of
> > FreeBSD at that). That averages
On Tue, Feb 20, 2001 at 01:22:57AM -0800, Gordon Tetlow wrote:
> My company (online greeting cards) sent our 4 million emails in 4 hours
> using a cluster of about 30 mailers with qmail on FreeBSD (old version of
> FreeBSD at that). That averages to 16,666 mail messages per minute or
> about 500 p
My company (online greeting cards) sent our 4 million emails in 4 hours
using a cluster of about 30 mailers with qmail on FreeBSD (old version of
FreeBSD at that). That averages to 16,666 mail messages per minute or
about 500 per minute per server. The best part was the servers weren't
breaking a
I would like to set up this challenge early next week.
NOw that I have taken out the IO issue with the mail servers
...already proved postfix did better on I/O so now i want to eliminate
that factor to 2 exactly the same machines. I running qmail ...1 running
postfix to see which MTA has better
15 matches
Mail list logo
