On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 09:29:57PM -0600, Gordon Klok wrote:
> On 18-Mar-08, at 5:14 AM, bofh wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Johan Mson Lindman
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >I think the key here is that not everything needs to be a 4 cpu quad
> >core
> >with 128Gigs of ram,
On 18-Mar-08, at 5:14 AM, bofh wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Johan Mson Lindman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nice!
Got any more _freebsd_ success stories for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the key here is that not everything needs to be a 4 cpu quad
core
with 128Gigs of ram, and not
T. Ribbrock wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:56:44PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
Out of curiousity: Was that with or without spamfilters and
virusscanning? These
Henning Brauer wrote:
* Marcus Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-18 12:31]:
back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
That is no big deal, however. sendmail and any Unix like system
can handle t
* Jussi Peltola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-18 15:41]:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 01:11:45PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > well. it depends a LOT on your users' usage profile. I could not serve
> > our customers from such an old machine.
> > ok, the frontends are still 360MHz Sun netra t1s. But
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 01:11:45PM +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> well. it depends a LOT on your users' usage profile. I could not serve
> our customers from such an old machine.
> ok, the frontends are still 360MHz Sun netra t1s. But the storage
> backend is a 14 disk raid5 of 15k RPM U320 drive
* Marcus Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-03-18 12:31]:
>
> > back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
> > a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
> >
> > That is no big deal, however. sendmail and any Unix like system
> > can handle that w
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 09:56:44PM +0100, Marc Balmer wrote:
> back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
> a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
Out of curiousity: Was that with or without spamfilters and
virusscanning? These two seem to cause
>
> back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
> a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
>
> That is no big deal, however. sendmail and any Unix like system
> can handle that without problem.
>
Agreed. People nowadays seem to wrongly associ
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 2:52 AM, Johan Mson Lindman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nice!
> Got any more _freebsd_ success stories for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I think the key here is that not everything needs to be a 4 cpu quad core
with 128Gigs of ram, and not that it was running freebsd or openbsd.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 10:16:13AM +0100, Siegbert Marschall wrote:
> > On Monday 17 March 2008 22:12:05 you wrote:
> > ...
> > Got any more _freebsd_ success stories for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
^^^
> >
> No. But I will be shutting down a ten year
> On Monday 17 March 2008 22:12:05 you wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> > back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
>> > a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
>> >
>> > That is no big deal,
On Monday 17 March 2008 22:12:05 you wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
> > a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
> >
> > That is no big deal, however.
raven schreef:
I still use an Pentium 166 with 64 Mb with FreeBSD 5.2 that handle 400
email accounts without problem :)
a pic of my beast http://raven.lilik.it/foto/im000785.jpg (it's an old pic)
Doesn't matter that much in case of machine pictures, it get's worse
with people when the pics
At 05:09 PM 3/17/2008 -0400, bofh wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Marcus Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've just finished a small argument with some colleages here at work.
> They just couldn't believe a Pentium 133 was serving a hundred e-mail
> accounts...
Did you not remind th
Marcus Andree ha scritto:
I've just finished a small argument with some colleages here at work.
They just couldn't believe a Pentium 133 was serving a hundred e-mail
accounts...
Even in death we can count on OpenBSD to show how things should
be done.
RIP.
I still use an Pentium 166 with 64 M
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:56 PM, Marc Balmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
> a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 with 32MB RAM.
>
> That is no big deal, however. sendmail and any Unix like system
> can handle that w
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Marcus Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I've just finished a small argument with some colleages here at work.
> They just couldn't believe a Pentium 133 was serving a hundred e-mail
> accounts...
Did you not remind them the earliest UNIX systems had 64K of ram
Marcus Andree wrote:
I've just finished a small argument with some colleages here at work.
They just couldn't believe a Pentium 133 was serving a hundred e-mail
accounts...
back in time (but not to long ago), I served 3000 email accounts for
a Swiss multinational insurance company on a P133 wi
I've just finished a small argument with some colleages here at work.
They just couldn't believe a Pentium 133 was serving a hundred e-mail
accounts...
Even in death we can count on OpenBSD to show how things should
be done.
RIP.
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Alexander Bochmann <[EMAIL PROTEC
.org
Subject: Re: the death of the oldest OpenBSD system on the net...
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 16:00:22 +0100
Mailer: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...on Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 05:11:10PM +0300, Nickolay A. Burkov wrote:
> Thanks for interesting story; very sadly.
>
...on Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 05:11:10PM +0300, Nickolay A. Burkov wrote:
> Thanks for interesting story; very sadly.
> Just out of curiosity, what hardware was it?
Can't find a dmesg currently, but from memory the
original setup was something like:
Pentium-133, 32MB RAM. 4GB Quantum IDE HDD, 3C
Thanks for interesting story; very sadly.
Just out of curiosity, what hardware was it?
On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 01:23:52PM +0100, Alexander Bochmann wrote:
> ...was rather unspectacular: Hardware failiure.
>
> The system's name was "base", originally installed with
> OpenBSD 2.3 on Jun 12, 1998:
I will drink a beer to commemorate our lose.
Jay
> ...was rather unspectacular: Hardware failiure.
>
> The system's name was "base", originally installed with
> OpenBSD 2.3 on Jun 12, 1998:
>
> -rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5 Jun 12 1998 etc/myname
>
> It ran the OpenBSD 2.3 kernel and most of the
...was rather unspectacular: Hardware failiure.
The system's name was "base", originally installed with
OpenBSD 2.3 on Jun 12, 1998:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root wheel 5 Jun 12 1998 etc/myname
It ran the OpenBSD 2.3 kernel and most of the userland until
it stopped responding about three weeks ago and
25 matches
Mail list logo
