> Vchkpw handles 10k users just fine in it's current version. I'm running
200
> virtual domains totaling about 10k pop accounts on a p2/300 with 256mb
ram,
I'm speculating here (I know, I know... :o) but if you have 200 virtual
domains with 10k users total, that's an average of 50 users per vpasswd
file. If there is only 1 virtual domain (as in the example) then there
would be 10k users in vpasswd.
> a couple scsi-2 drives, Apache 1.3.4, SQWebmail 0.20 on FreeBSD 3.1 and it
> runs like a top. No complaints in the slightest from here as far as
> performance goes. I was thinking of looking at hacking vchkpw to handle a
> cdb style password file instead of flat text however. While I'm doing fine
> now, the business is growing and I want to be sure I can continue when I
> hit 15k+.
Sounds like this may be a useful patch to have.
R.
> Steve
>
> Robin Bowes writes:
> > This isn't an answer to the original question - just some thoughts...
> >
> > How would vchkpw perform in this situation?
(http://www.inter7.com/vchkpw/)
> > Presumably, the vpasswd file would be the bottleneck? Is it possible to
use
> > vchkpw with a DB of some sort, eg CDB? Presumably, this would involve
> > hacking vchkpw appropriately?
> >
> > R.
> >
> > Chris McCarthy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > My company wants to provide users on the internet with a free email
> > > service ([EMAIL PROTECTED]). We'll be starting off with about
> > > 3,000 users, potentially growing up to 10,000 in the next 12 months.
> > >
> > > How feasible is it to create a passwd/shadow entry for each user,
> > > providing them with POP/IMAP access ? (or maybe just pop if imap puts
> > > too much load on the server).
> > >
> > > With the passwd and shadow files containing so many entries, will the
> > > password lookups take forever ?
> > >
> > > Our current server spec is a PIII 400, 256M, but we'll replace it with
a
> > > high spec server if/when needed.
> > >
> > > Does this sound OK, or should we look at buying (or developing)
hotmail
> > > style software instead ?
> > >
> > >
> > > Any ideas/comments appreciated,
> > > .Chris.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
