I concur. mail load is ideally suited for dividing up
amongst multiple machines (with then multiple i/o busses, etc. etc.).
I far prefer this method to the one big machine method.
-Bob
* Tobias Weingartner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005-07-01 10:11]:
> I'm late to the game... but why not split the load over a number
> of servers? Using carp for reduncancy, rdr/round-robin and/or hash,
> you should be able to spread the load some.
>
> --Toby.
>
> On Wednesday, June 29, Jeffrey Lim wrote:
> > On 6/29/05, Matt Juszczak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Just spoke with the boss. My boss really "wants to run SMP". He's an
> > > ill-informed business man and thinks that a single 3 ghz with 4 gb RAM
> > > couldn't handle our mail server, which I believe it would have no problems
> > > at all doing.
> > >
> >
> > sounds like somebody who wouldnt know the difference anyway if u just
> > went right ahead and *not* used smp, and told him otherwise, doesnt
> > it?
> >
> > I'm not saying outright that u should really give up smp - but this is
> > an option for u.
> >
> > -jf
> >
> > > 10,000 users isn't that many.
> > > Either way, if hes set on SMP, then I either need to go to another *BSD
> > > other than FreeBSD which wont have this problem (such as OpenBSD, although
> > > do you know whether or not OpenBSD's SMP can support Dual Xeon's?) or
> > > NetBSD. Otherwise, I have to go to linux or windows which I really don't
> > > want to do at all.
> > >
> > > Thanks again for your help.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Matt
>
--
Bob Beck Computing and Network Services
[EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Alberta
True Evil hides its real intentions in its street address.
