In the last episode (Nov 04), Brad Knowles said:
> At 2:35 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco Reyes wrote:
> >> If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works
> >> pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a
> >> good choice.
> >
> > How about for database? In p
--- Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, michael meltzer wrote:
>
> >
> > Controller:
> > http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata2-9000.asp
> > 16 port muili-lane, with BU and 265meg, cheaper
> than
> > most SCSI controller
>
> From what I gather, the ARECA control
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, michael meltzer wrote:
Controller:
http://www.3ware.com/products/serial_ata2-9000.asp
16 port muili-lane, with BU and 265meg, cheaper than
most SCSI controller
From what I gather, the ARECA controllers have significantly better
performance.
__
--- Francisco Reyes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote:
>
> > If you're using maildir, that is one of the
> situations which works pretty
> > well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also
> (always? :-) a good choice.
>
> How about for database? In particular post
At 2:06 PM -0600 2005-11-03, Dan Nelson wrote:
The biggest reason for going RAID-5 is that you only get 50% useable
capacity out of RAID 10, and at least 75% out of a RAID 5 (with a 3+1
layout. With an 8+1 layout you get 88%). If you don't need fast
writes, or your controller has sufficien
At 2:35 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco Reyes wrote:
If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works
pretty well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good
choice.
How about for database? In particular postgresql.
How bad would RAID 5 be for it?
RAID-5
In the last episode (Nov 03), Francisco Reyes said:
> On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> How about for database? In particular postgresql.
> How bad would RAID 5 be for it?
>
> I still have some, limited, hopes I can convince the owner of the
> company to go with RAID 10 with 10K rpm drives
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Chuck Swiger wrote:
If you're using maildir, that is one of the situations which works pretty
well with RAID-5, although RAID-10 is also (always? :-) a good choice.
How about for database? In particular postgresql.
How bad would RAID 5 be for it?
I still have some, limited
At 1:34 PM -0500 2005-11-03, Francisco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server performance --
it accelerates reads (if you have mirror load-balancing), but all writes
are required to be held until complete on both dis
Francisco wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server
performance -- it accelerates reads (if you have mirror
load-balancing), but all writes are required to be held until complete
on both disks. The only worse case would be RA
On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Brad Knowles wrote:
Note that RAID-1 is the second worst-case for mail server performance
-- it accelerates reads (if you have mirror load-balancing), but all writes
are required to be held until complete on both disks. The only worse case
would be RAID-5, where you have
On Tue, October 18, 2005 12:15 pm, Will Saxon wrote:
>
> BSD has been around since the 70s, any suggestions for something
> more modern?
But FreeBSD is in active development. Qmail is not and has not been for
around 7 years.
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Jakubik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 5:21 PM
> To: Will Saxon
> Cc: Ronald Klop; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Disk 100% busy
>
>
> On Sun, October 16, 2005 1:53 pm, Will Saxon wrote:
>
On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 05:21:10PM -0400, Mike Jakubik wrote..
> On Sun, October 16, 2005 1:53 pm, Will Saxon wrote:
>
> > I completely forgot that I had the partition mounted 'sync'. That might
> > explain things a bit, huh.
>
> Do NOT mount the partition async, you are asking for filesystem cor
On Sun, October 16, 2005 1:53 pm, Will Saxon wrote:
> I completely forgot that I had the partition mounted 'sync'. That might
> explain things a bit, huh.
Do NOT mount the partition async, you are asking for filesystem corruption.
> I am using qmail - the author indicates that softupdates is no
At 1:53 PM -0400 2005-10-16, Will Saxon wrote:
I completely forgot that I had the partition mounted 'sync'. That might
explain things a bit, huh.
Perhaps.
I am using qmail - the author indicates that softupdates is not
recommended. However, I am going to give it a shot and see if
-Original Message-
From: Ronald Klop [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sun 2005-10-16 12:40
To: Will Saxon; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject:Re: Disk 100% busy
> On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:16:34 +0200, Will Saxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I am
At 9:16 AM -0400 2005-10-16, Will Saxon wrote:
In this case, my mail gateway is is a dual 3.06GHz Xeon with 1GB of ram
and 2 36GB 15krpm drives in a raid-1 on a smart array 6i (cciss)
controller. I am running FreeBSD 5.4-RELEASE-p1.
Systat -vmstat reports the disk mirror is 100% busy at all
In the last episode (Oct 16), Will Saxon said:
> I am trying to diagnose a problem whereby a virus scanner (clam
> antivirus) is taking too long to scan attachments on a mail server.
> We have an attachment limitation of 20MB and an attachment of 7-20MB
> can take over 3 minutes to scan. This often
On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 15:16:34 +0200, Will Saxon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
I am trying to diagnose a problem whereby a virus scanner (clam
antivirus) is taking too long to scan attachments on a mail server. We
have an attachment limitation of 20MB and an attachment of 7-20MB can
take over 3 min
I am trying to diagnose a problem whereby a virus scanner (clam
antivirus) is taking too long to scan attachments on a mail server. We
have an attachment limitation of 20MB and an attachment of 7-20MB can
take over 3 minutes to scan. This often causes the sending mail server
to timeout and resend t
21 matches
Mail list logo
