On Wed, Oct 11, 2000 at 12:03:05AM -0500, Austad, Jay wrote:
> The queues aren't bad now, we're pretty good about prompty removing any
> addresses that are bad, and total garbage emails don't even get subscribed
> to the list.
>
> Doesn't really matter if we lose a queue.
Good. A perfect candidate for either a MFS or RAM disk.
> I did play with memory
> filesystems a couple of months ago, and I got worse performance on that than
> I did on the 30GB IDE drive on the machine!
Hmm. That is interesting. I was speculating that all that fsyncing to a
memory file system would be a big win. I might have to play with it a bit
to see if I get similar results to you.
> I think I may have figured out
> a way to distribute the queue across multiple servers. I just have to
> figure out if ezmlm would still be able to handle bounces OK.
You probably have this already, but a number of large list players use
a dedicated bounce machine by the simple expedient of setting the verp
address to be [EMAIL PROTECTED] or somesuch.
As you're thinking, a lot of people significantly reduce the timers
in ezmlm (and -idx has command line options for this) to keep the bounce
state to a reasonable size.
It does mean extra work propogating the unsub back to the list, but it
may well be that you are already propogating it back to, say, a database
anyway...
Regards.
