On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote: > I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck > in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast. > (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
Running the queue on a ramdisk would kill reliability. Using a non-volatile RAM device however will significantly increase performance without risk. Umem devices seem a good option for this, their recent devices are PCI 2.2 - 64bit 66MHz and claim to sustain over 500MB/s transfer rates with no seeks, I am not sure about Linux device driver support for that, but the old versions worked well from all accounts. If you put your queue on a Umem device you should get all the performance of a RAM disk with all the reliability of a RAID hard drive device (better reliability than a hard drive as there are no moving parts). http://www.micromemory.com/newwebsite/Dynamic/index.asp > Howabout in an fs made in a file mounted looback?) What would be the benefit of a FS in a loopback mounted file? That should kill performance and reliability at the same time. > So I've given up on Qmail. I'm using Exim for small systems, > and I'll try Postfix for my next big one. I agree that Postfix is good. However for the last big ISP I was running Qmail was chosen because it uses LDAP entries in the same way as Netscape (the legacy email system) while Postfix has some minor differences. -- http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]