Re: hardware sizing ?
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 01:58:41PM -0400, Dan Melomedman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 07:47:20PM +0200, Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > Really have a look at the sources. You'll see the difference very fast. > > There are strong rules for code on OpenBSD, style(9) is just a tiny excerpt. > > The code is just written with "correctnedd" in mind, and with paranoia. > > I trust you on the clean source of OpenBSD, that's one of their primary > goals, however it doesn't make their OS better. In fact in computing, Yes it does. Having a clear and consistent code makes the code easier to maintain and read. Code that is easy to maintan and read is easier to make secure and safe since other people than the creator can easily comprehend it. In the long run, this usually makes for a better product. Writing clean and "correct" code is one of the first things you'll learn in software design. -- Lars Hansson Technical Consultant/System Administrator UNET, Inc.Makati City, Philippines e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware sizing ?
henning, all, > > > It's a matter of fact that qmail isn't as reliable on Linux as on *BSD as it > > > relies on some FFS semantics ext2fs just doen not fulfill. > > If that is the case then there is a bug in qmail - the software should > > be correct to the system underneath it, not apply semantics that aren't > > supported and say "it's their problem, not ours...!" when it doesn't > > work properly. > > No, it's a bug in ext2fs. that's crap, of course. if it's a bug in ext2 then it's a bug in softupdates and large numbers of other filesystems that don't provide syncrhonous metadata updates by default (although all of them do and can). there has just been a long discussion about exactly this issue on the linux kernel mailing list, specifically whether the SUS (single unix specification) requires than an fsync also synch a directory tree up to the root before returning. the conclusion of many people on the lkml (including those advocating the behavior) is that SUS does not require this behavior although it would be nice to offer an ext2 or vfs option for supporting it. people also noted that linux uses the semantics of fsync(dir) to synchronize the name metadata for a file and that that is fast and efficient (as others have noted, ext2 also offers the option of mounting filesystems and directories in synchronous mode, but that slows down everything of course). a patch to make qmail fsync the parent directory has been around for a long time and causes qmail to behave reliably (and fast!) on linux. the bottom line is that FFS semantics are not universal and they haven't been for a long time, even among bsds. assuming that they are is a mistake. todd underwood vice president & chief technology officer oso grande technologies, inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: hardware sizing ?
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:28:42PM +0100, François Philippo wrote: > where could I find reference about > hardware sizing for a mail server with qmail, courier. ?? os list: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/orientation.html#os file systems: http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html#filesystems no official recommended hardware that I know. Ross > >
Re: hardware sizing ?
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 03:54:39PM +0100, François Philippo wrote: > I suppose that all your users set the same servers (pop, smtp...) in their > mal software > so you use something to reroute each user on the good server which stock his > mailbox. > how do you do that ? > thanx I am not sure what you are saying. We do use the one server for POP and SMTPno need to re-route email to "good server". Ross > > -Message d'origine- > De : Ross Cooney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Envoyé : jeudi 9 août 2001 14:16 > À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Objet : Re: hardware sizing ? > > > On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > > Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > > > I want to have a strong and fast mail server on redhat 7.1 which is > make > > > > > > "strong and fast mail server" and "redhat" in one sentence? Interesting. > > > > I'm curious - you seem very anti Linux and particularly anti Redhat (and > > pro BSD, which isn't a bad thing), but I'm wondering why - were you > > bitten by a Redhat server in a former life? :) > > > > Seriously - can you give details? > > We build all our servers on RedHat and have had no problems. > > We only have about 6,000 users but they are distributed around several data > centers in the UK and Ireland. > > Ross > > > > > > > > Regards, > > Graham > > -- > > - > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]"There's a moon > > over Bourbon Street > > tonight..." >
RE: hardware sizing ?
I suppose that all your users set the same servers (pop, smtp...) in their mal software so you use something to reroute each user on the good server which stock his mailbox. how do you do that ? thanx -Message d'origine- De : Ross Cooney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Envoyé : jeudi 9 août 2001 14:16 À : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Objet : Re: hardware sizing ? On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > I want to have a strong and fast mail server on redhat 7.1 which is make > > > > "strong and fast mail server" and "redhat" in one sentence? Interesting. > > I'm curious - you seem very anti Linux and particularly anti Redhat (and > pro BSD, which isn't a bad thing), but I'm wondering why - were you > bitten by a Redhat server in a former life? :) > > Seriously - can you give details? We build all our servers on RedHat and have had no problems. We only have about 6,000 users but they are distributed around several data centers in the UK and Ireland. Ross > > Regards, > Graham > -- > - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon > over Bourbon Street > tonight..."
Re: hardware sizing ?
On Thu, Aug 09, 2001 at 10:54:50AM +0200, Graham Leggett wrote: > Henning Brauer wrote: > > > > I want to have a strong and fast mail server on redhat 7.1 which is make > > > > "strong and fast mail server" and "redhat" in one sentence? Interesting. > > I'm curious - you seem very anti Linux and particularly anti Redhat (and > pro BSD, which isn't a bad thing), but I'm wondering why - were you > bitten by a Redhat server in a former life? :) > > Seriously - can you give details? We build all our servers on RedHat and have had no problems. We only have about 6,000 users but they are distributed around several data centers in the UK and Ireland. Ross > > Regards, > Graham > -- > - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] "There's a moon > over Bourbon Street > tonight..."
Re: hardware sizing ?
On 09 Aug (10:54), Graham Leggett wrote: > I'm curious - you seem very anti Linux and particularly anti Redhat (and > pro BSD, which isn't a bad thing), but I'm wondering why - were you > bitten by a Redhat server in a former life? :) > > Seriously - can you give details? Linux evolves into a bastard, just look at the latest stuff. The libc is bloated, the kernel releases focus on USB support and the distributions are getting worse every day. RedHat 6.2 was the latest usable commercial one. Using "Redhat 7.x" and "stable strong" in one sentence is really not going to work. :) -- Christian Bauer System Services Blue Mars GmbH mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ebersheimstrasse 5 http://www.bluemars.de/ D-60320 Frankfurt/Main Tel: +49/(0)69/46 99 73-0
