Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 03:37:02PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > One might suggest that CIDR is not a good fit for this even if stored > > just once, an IPC based server that walks trees rather than lists > > would be far more suitable... > > I agree that the Postfix CIDR implementation achieve

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Wietse Venema
Victor Duchovni: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:31:36PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > > Also, only use proxymap for IPC based tables (ldap, mysql, pgsql, tcp, > > > ...), > > > do not use proxymap for indexed files, cidr tables, pcre/regexp tables, > > > > > > > It depends on what the tr

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 02:31:36PM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > Also, only use proxymap for IPC based tables (ldap, mysql, pgsql, tcp, ...), > > do not use proxymap for indexed files, cidr tables, pcre/regexp tables, > > It depends on what the trade-offs are. I know of one user with > ver

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Wietse Venema
Victor Duchovni: > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:52:35AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > > > Ralf Hildebrandt: > > > * Stefan Foerster : > > > > > > > While I agree that it is totally obvious that table are re-read as > > > > soon as a new proxymap(8) process is spawned, on a resonably busy > > > > sy

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Victor Duchovni
On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:52:35AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Ralf Hildebrandt: > > * Stefan Foerster : > > > > > While I agree that it is totally obvious that table are re-read as > > > soon as a new proxymap(8) process is spawned, on a resonably busy > > > system, this won't happen too often

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Wietse Venema
Ralf Hildebrandt: > * Stefan Foerster : > > > While I agree that it is totally obvious that table are re-read as > > soon as a new proxymap(8) process is spawned, on a resonably busy > > system, this won't happen too often. So getting a definitive answer on > > that one would still be helpful. >

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-07-15 Thread Ralf Hildebrandt
* Stefan Foerster : > While I agree that it is totally obvious that table are re-read as > soon as a new proxymap(8) process is spawned, on a resonably busy > system, this won't happen too often. So getting a definitive answer on > that one would still be helpful. Has this been answered? It also

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Wietse Venema
Stefan Foerster: > > This depends on the query load. When a client needs proxymap service > > it is either helped by an existing proxymap process that is idle, > > or else it is helped by a new proxymap process. In the first case > > it will share the table with other proxymap clients. > > As a f

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Stefan Foerster
* Wietse Venema : > Stefan Foerster: > > Two questions regarding proxymap: > > > > 1. Is a single proxymap(8) process able to handle multiple lookup > > tables? I.e., taking the example from the manpage, modifying it to > > > > mysql = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/ > > virtual_alias_maps =${mysql}vir

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Wietse Venema
Stefan Foerster: > Two questions regarding proxymap: > > 1. Is a single proxymap(8) process able to handle multiple lookup > tables? I.e., taking the example from the manpage, modifying it to > > mysql = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/ > virtual_alias_maps =${mysql}virtual_alias_maps.cf > virtual_alias

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Stefan Foerster
* Stan Hoeppner : > Stefan Foerster put forth on 6/20/2010 5:16 AM: > > and furthermore assuming a limit of 40 proxymap(8) processes defined > > in master.cf, will this result in 40 or 80 connections to the > > database? > > I have no idea on this one. The whole point of proxymap is to have one >

proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Stefan Foerster
Two questions regarding proxymap: 1. Is a single proxymap(8) process able to handle multiple lookup tables? I.e., taking the example from the manpage, modifying it to mysql = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/ virtual_alias_maps =${mysql}virtual_alias_maps.cf virtual_alias_domains = ${mysql}virtual_alias_

Re: proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Stan Hoeppner
Stefan Foerster put forth on 6/20/2010 5:16 AM: > Two questions regarding proxymap: > > 1. Is a single proxymap(8) process able to handle multiple lookup > tables? I.e., taking the example from the manpage, modifying it to For read maps, yes. And even better, one process will do multiple map typ

proxymap(8), number of connections, detecting altered tables

2010-06-20 Thread Stefan Foerster
Two questions regarding proxymap: 1. Is a single proxymap(8) process able to handle multiple lookup tables? I.e., taking the example from the manpage, modifying it to mysql = proxy:mysql:/etc/postfix/ virtual_alias_maps =${mysql}virtual_alias_maps.cf virtual_alias_domains = ${mysql}virtual_alias_