On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Joel Reicher wrote:
Is there any data on the extent to which imapd needs to be load balanced?
Is it just because of all the fork()ing?
imapd needs little CPU, but intensive I/O and enough memory to prevent
swapping.
I agree than fork()ing is a problem. fork()ing can be abolished by:
(1) using Linux or BSD (not using SVR4 or OSF/1)
AND
(2) not requiring the use of mlock, one of:
a) deliver mail to a user-owned directory (e.g., the home directory)
and not use the spool directory at all
OR
b) protect the spool directory 1777 so .lock files can be created
directly without using mlock.
As I asked above; is there reason to believe an IMAP server failure is
more likely than a storage server failure?
I don't think so.
The vendors of storage server appliances have done a great job of selling
their product as being especially reliable, but they've never explained
why it should be more reliable than a dedicated IMAP server.
What I'm talking about is effectively an IMAP server applicance, which
should share all the reliability characteristics of a storage server
appliance. Only, instead of serving storage, it serves IMAP.
-- Mark --
http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
