|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance...
From: Wietse Venema (wietse
porcupine.org)Date: Sun Mar 05 2000 - 10:01:48 CST
- Next message: Wietse Venema: "Re: virtualdomain"
- Previous message: Jon Newman: "Re: virtualdomain"
- In reply to: Brad Knowles: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Next in thread: Justin Robertson: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Next in thread: Rafi Sadowsky: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Reply: Justin Robertson: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
I understand that I was assuming too much knowledge on the poster's
side when I explained why today's IDE disks can't deliver the
performance necessary for Postfix to do 500 email messages a second.
I was assuming that someone who operates advanced hardware such as
mentioned in the subject has a general understanding of operating
systems, of file systems and of network protocols.
That's not right. I apologize.
Wietse
- Next message: Wietse Venema: "Re: virtualdomain"
- Previous message: Jon Newman: "Re: virtualdomain"
- In reply to: Brad Knowles: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Next in thread: Justin Robertson: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Next in thread: Rafi Sadowsky: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Reply: Wietse Venema: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Reply: Justin Robertson: "Re: SCSI, U2W in particular?, and poor performance..."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]