|
Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com |
Subject: Re: large postfix installations?
From: Ian C.Sison (ian.s
qsr.com.ph)Date: Mon Apr 03 2000 - 23:51:49 CDT
- Next message: Michael Schwager: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Previous message: Michael Schwager: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- In reply to: Brad Knowles: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Next in thread: Brad Knowles: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Reply: Ian C.Sison: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Reply: Brad Knowles: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>
> If you used postfix on that same hardware, you should be able to
> get considerably more speed out of that you can with sendmail.
>
>
> Remember -- mail is not CPU bound, it's I/O bound, specifically
> disk I/O bound. In particular, the single most critical thing to
> eliminate is synchronous metadata updates.
>
>
> In your case, I think you'd be much better off switching
> filesystems to UFS logging or Veritas VxFS than spending extra money
> on the hardware.
>
> Better yet, switch to FreeBSD and use softupdates, where you
> should see a factor of five to ten performance improvement.
Question on this. Isn't the issue on async updates vs sync updates, on any OS
moot if your disk controller or HD contains a large enough cache that buffers
writes to the disk anyway?
- Next message: Michael Schwager: "Re: Header logging, revisited"
- Previous message: Michael Schwager: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- In reply to: Brad Knowles: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Next in thread: Brad Knowles: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Reply: Ian C.Sison: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Reply: Brad Knowles: "Re: large postfix installations?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]