Steven,
As long as we all know what is influencing the performance, great! My reply
was only to make sure you (was not sure what you position was, but do now!)
and others understand what effects the OS can have on overall system (and
IMail!) performance!
I was a bit surprised to hear performance dropped so much!! 1/5, just
because of a 'share', seems like an AWFUL lot. But then again, who knows all
the working of NT!
I have often said 'faster disk systems means higher performance from IMail'
as it is almost always using the disk. Guess this really proves my point!
Daniel Donnelly
Ipswitch Technical Support
________________________________________________________
See our Knowledge Base at http://support.ipswitch.com/kb
----- Original Message -----
From: "STEVEN MOORE (IFL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 11:49 AM
Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load balance behind
a Cisco 6509
> Hi Daniel,
>
> I was not implying that it was IMail's fault, it's definitely an OS issue
> and some degradation is to be expected. I stated the point because we were
> surprised just how much of an overhead this adds and also it is completely
> uncached and the OS doesn't short cut the network layer even when
accessing
> the local disk. Apologies if I gave the wrong impression in my last email.
>
>
> Steve
>
> Steven Moore
> Internet Development Engineer
> Research Machines
> +44 1235 823522
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Daniel Donnelly
> Sent: 03 May 2000 14:50
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load balance
> behind a Cisco 6509
>
>
> Gee, sounds like an OS issue to me! OS is what performs disk accesses to
> data. Increased processor load (an maybe other things you did not see,
like
> Processor Queue Length) or slower disk access will definitely slow IMail.
> Network access to remote disks cannot perform at the same speed as local
> access.
>
> Daniel Donnelly
> Ipswitch Technical Support
> ________________________________________________________
> See our Knowledge Base at http://support.ipswitch.com/kb
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "STEVEN MOORE (IFL)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2000 5:37 AM
> Subject: RE: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load balance
behind
> a Cisco 6509
>
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > An additional problem to think of when using the proposed configurations
> is
> > that when using the network layer for storage IMail and disk access in
> > general is much slower, we saw performance drop to about 20% when using
a
> > network share, and that was to a drive on the same machine. Also the
> > processor load increased significantly.
> >
> > Steve
> >
> > Steven Moore
> > Internet Development Engineer
> > Research Machines
> > +44 1235 823522
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Zerbe, Dean
> > Sent: 02 May 2000 22:10
> > To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> > Subject: [IMail Forum] IMAIL 6.03 How do I Config to load balance behind
a
> > Cisco 6509
> >
> >
> > My company is running a Cisco powered network. with 2 Cisco GSR's those
> are
> > connected to 2 6509 switches. the Cisco 6509 has the ability to do load
> > balance. the hardware I am using allows 2 Ethernet ports to be
connected
> > for each server to theoretically do 200mbps full duplex. this network
is
> > fully fault tolerant
> >
> > Now the Question....
> >
> > How should I configure IMAIL or should I bother?
> >
> >
> > My possible concept.
> >
> >
> > run 4 or more front end IMAIL servers load balanced from the Cisco 6509.
> > have those servers sync users by using a SQL 7.0 database. have the
> > directory structure point to a UNC \\bigdiskserver\domainxyz
> > <file://\\bigdiskserver\domainxyz> .
> >
> >
> > then presto it all crashes because of open file issues? I don't know any
> > ideas would help? even other products you tell me
> >
> > the SQL server and location for the file are in a Microsoft cluster
> server.
> >
> > this is expected to hold 500,000 + accounts.
> >
> >
> > STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential. You should not copy
it
> or
> > disclose its contents to anyone. You may use and apply the information
> only
> > for the intended purpose. Internet communications are not secure and
> > therefore RM does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of
this
> > message. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author
and
> > not those of RM. If this email has come to you in error please delete it
> and
> > any attachments.
> >
> >
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
>
> STANDARD DISCLAIMER: This message is confidential. You should not copy it
or
> disclose its contents to anyone. You may use and apply the information
only
> for the intended purpose. Internet communications are not secure and
> therefore RM does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this
> message. Any views or opinions presented are only those of the author and
> not those of RM. If this email has come to you in error please delete it
and
> any attachments.
>
> Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
> to be removed from this list.
>
Please visit http://www.ipswitch.com/support/mailing-lists.html
to be removed from this list.
