qmail reusing msg numbers - is this normal ?
Dear All I've just noticed something on one of my qmail boxes is that it seems to reuse msg numbers for example: @40003aaf6c250f34dc44 new msg 325819 @40003aaf6c250f386e54 info msg 325819: bytes 478 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 11462 uid 504 @40003aaf6c25104fb284 starting delivery 3: msg 325819 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003aaf6c25104ff8d4 status: local 1/10 remote 0/220 @40003aaf6c2511a2f614 delivery 3: success: did_0+0+1/ @40003aaf6c2511f3a26c status: local 0/10 remote 0/220 @40003aaf6c2511f6bf4c end msg 325819 @40003aaf6c8626d736e4 new msg 325819 @40003aaf6c8626d7cf3c info msg 325819: bytes 442 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 11532 uid 0 @40003aaf6c862801340c starting delivery 4: msg 325819 to local [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003aaf6c86280191cc status: local 1/10 remote 0/220 @40003aaf6c862afef34c new msg 325820 @40003aaf6c862aff975c info msg 325820: bytes 560 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] qp 11535 uid 511 @40003aaf6c862c1a2b34 starting delivery 5: msg 325820 to remote [EMAIL PROTECTED] @40003aaf6c862c1a8124 status: local 1/10 remote 1/220 @40003aaf6c862c940e54 delivery 4: success: did_0+1+0/qp_11535/ @40003aaf6c862ce1018c status: local 0/10 remote 1/220 @40003aaf6c862ce71824 end msg 325819 @40003aaf6c8714a13254 delivery 5: success: 195.92.195.155_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_OK_id=14dAxY-U5-00/ @40003aaf6c8714f0e894 status: local 0/10 remote 0/220 @40003aaf6c8714f40574 end msg 325820 I.e msg no 325819 has been reused twice. Everything appears ok - is this something to worry about ? Regards Greg
Re: qmail reusing msg numbers - is this normal ?
On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:14:43PM +, Greg Cope wrote: Dear All I.e msg no 325819 has been reused twice. Everything appears ok - is this something to worry about ? No. It's entirely normal. The msg number is the inode. inodes get reused by Unix when a file is deleted. Regards.
Re: qmail reusing msg numbers - is this normal ?
Mark Delany wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 01:14:43PM +, Greg Cope wrote: Dear All I.e msg no 325819 has been reused twice. Everything appears ok - is this something to worry about ? No. It's entirely normal. The msg number is the inode. inodes get reused by Unix when a file is deleted. Regards. Thought that was the case, just checking. We are having problems with an application and I am just checking the qmail install, althought the app could be at fault as qmail appears fine. Thanks Greg
Error Message Numbers
I've noticed that, whenever an error occurs with qmail, a specific number is attached in the maillog. I'd like to be able to just go look those up and leave you all alone, but I don't know where to do so. Could you let me know? Thanks, Alex le Fevre __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices. http://auctions.yahoo.com/
Re: message numbers repeating?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 09:12:18PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: [snip] [johan@alpha johan]$ grep 'msg 26226$' /var/log/maillog | tail Jan 7 20:30:39 alpha qmail: 978895839.019739 new msg 26226 Jan 7 20:30:39 alpha qmail: 978895839.700460 end msg 26226 Jan 7 20:34:37 alpha qmail: 978896077.553056 new msg 26226 Jan 7 20:34:38 alpha qmail: 978896078.792728 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:11 alpha qmail: 978897791.864174 new msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:13 alpha qmail: 978897793.668139 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:17 alpha qmail: 978897797.017629 new msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:17 alpha qmail: 978897797.663223 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:47 alpha qmail: 978897827.825925 new msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:48 alpha qmail: 978897828.517892 end msg 26226 This kinda worries me. Also makes log analysis a pest. What's wrong? Log analysis is trivial. At 'new msg' create a table entry for the message. At 'end msg' remove it. Reuse is no problem then. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me 'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
Re: message numbers repeating?
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:49:38PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Log analysis is trivial. At 'new msg' create a table entry for the
message. At 'end msg' remove it. Reuse is no problem then.
That's less trivial that the foreach (grep) {grep} i used :-
-Johan
--
Johan Almqvist
http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
PGP signature
Re: message numbers repeating?
On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 12:00:35AM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote:
On Tue, Jan 09, 2001 at 11:49:38PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
Log analysis is trivial. At 'new msg' create a table entry for the
message. At 'end msg' remove it. Reuse is no problem then.
That's less trivial that the foreach (grep) {grep} i used :-
That's not analysis :P
Greetz, Peter
--
dataloss networks
'/ignore-ance is bliss' - me
'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
message numbers repeating?
This is from my mail log: Jan 7 21:03:13 alpha qmail: 978897793.668139 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:17 alpha qmail: 978897797.017629 new msg 26226 No, I didn't tinker with the clock. These lines are immediately after each other. And it's not syslog sync problems either, I believe: [johan@alpha johan]$ grep 'msg 26226$' /var/log/maillog | tail Jan 7 20:30:39 alpha qmail: 978895839.019739 new msg 26226 Jan 7 20:30:39 alpha qmail: 978895839.700460 end msg 26226 Jan 7 20:34:37 alpha qmail: 978896077.553056 new msg 26226 Jan 7 20:34:38 alpha qmail: 978896078.792728 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:11 alpha qmail: 978897791.864174 new msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:13 alpha qmail: 978897793.668139 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:17 alpha qmail: 978897797.017629 new msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:17 alpha qmail: 978897797.663223 end msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:47 alpha qmail: 978897827.825925 new msg 26226 Jan 7 21:03:48 alpha qmail: 978897828.517892 end msg 26226 This kinda worries me. Also makes log analysis a pest. What's wrong? Bruce G's rpms, by the way. -Johan -- Johan Almqvist http://www.almqvist.net/johan/qmail/
Re: message numbers repeating?
On Sun, Jan 07, 2001 at 09:12:18PM +0100, Johan Almqvist wrote: This kinda worries me. Also makes log analysis a pest. What's wrong? Hi, Absolutely nothing. The message ID is the inode number of the messages queue file. These do get reused. See the qmail-log(5) man page for details of qmail's logging output. james -- James Raftery (JBR54) "Managing 4000 customer domains with BIND has been a lot like herding cats." - Mike Batchelor, on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: emergency phone numbers (was: Volunteers for a multilog patch?)
On 15 Oct 2000, Chris K. Young wrote: Quoted from Peter Samuel: - 911 is the emergency number in North America, while it is 000 in Oz, 999 in NZ and UK etc. 999 in New Zealand? Not unless you use pulse dialling! :-) (Hint: most phones in New Zealand do tone dialling. And rotary phones in New Zealand are labelled backwards to what I've seen in other places.) That's what confused me! I've not been in NZ since 1980 and I remember that their emergency number was the hardest to dial on a rotary phone (like Australia's 000), I'd forgotten that their rotary phones were backwards, hence 111 is the hardest number to dial. (Or close to it). A New Zealand station (channel 2, I think) used to screen ``Rescue 911'' (that American programme) on TV, and some kids actually dialled 911 in an emergency. :-( So since then, channel 2 had another series, ``Rescue 111''. Similar problems in Oz. -- Regards Peter -- Peter Samuel[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-smith.org (development)http://www.e-smith.com (corporate) Phone: +1 613 368 4398 Fax: +1 613 564 7739 e-smith, inc. 1500-150 Metcalfe St, Ottawa, ON K2P 1P1 Canada "If you kill all your unhappy customers, you'll only have happy ones left"
emergency phone numbers (was: Volunteers for a multilog patch?)
Quoted from Peter Samuel: - 911 is the emergency number in North America, while it is 000 in Oz, 999 in NZ and UK etc. 999 in New Zealand? Not unless you use pulse dialling! :-) (Hint: most phones in New Zealand do tone dialling. And rotary phones in New Zealand are labelled backwards to what I've seen in other places.) A New Zealand station (channel 2, I think) used to screen ``Rescue 911'' (that American programme) on TV, and some kids actually dialled 911 in an emergency. :-( So since then, channel 2 had another series, ``Rescue 111''. ---Chris K. -- Chris, the Young One |_ If you can't afford a backup system, you can't Auckland, New Zealand |_ afford to have important data on your computer. http://cloud9.hedgee.com/ |_ ---Tracy R. Reed
Re: different port numbers
Qmail don't use any of this port (correct me if I wrong), but qmail-tcpd do. So u may just put that lines in your startup files: 1. /usr/local/bin/tcpserver -v -x /etc/tcp.smtp.cdb -u qmailr -g nofiles 0 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd 21 | /usr/local/bin/multilog \ t /var/log/smtpd 2. /usr/local/bin/tcpserver 0 /var/qmail/bin/qmail-popup \ your.host.name /bin/checkpassword /var/qmail/bin/qmail-pop3d Maildir And, of course, u must have this port in /etc/servises. Best regards. On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Marco wrote: Hi, I wanted to change the port numbers for the mail service (using qmail), while forwarding it from a firewall to the server: ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 25 -R mailserver_address ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 110 -R mailserver_address Is it possible to install Qmail (and possibly manage it subsequently) so that it can respond to port numbers and ? If so, what should I do? Thank you in advance. Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
different port numbers
Hi, I wanted to change the port numbers for the mail service (using qmail), while forwarding it from a firewall to the server: ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 25 -R mailserver_address ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address110 -R mailserver_address Is it possible to install Qmail (and possibly manage it subsequently) so that it can respond to port numbers and ? If so, what should I do? Thank you in advance. Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: different port numbers
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 15:58:58 +0200, "Marco" wrote: Is it possible to install Qmail (and possibly manage it subsequently) so that it can respond to port numbers and ? If so, what should I do? Yes, it is possible. You need to change the invocation of tcpserver to use port instead of port 25 (commonly written as smtp). Andy
Re: different port numbers
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 03:58:58PM +0200, Marco wrote: ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 25 -R mailserver_address ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 110 -R mailserver_address Is it possible to install Qmail (and possibly manage it subsequently) so that it can respond to port numbers and ? If so, what should I do? If you're using tcpserver, supply or instead of smtp or pop3 as the port number. Chris
Re: different port numbers
On Mon, Oct 09, 2000 at 03:58:58PM +0200, Marco wrote: Hi, I wanted to change the port numbers for the mail service (using qmail), while forwarding it from a firewall to the server: ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 25 -R mailserver_address ipmasqadm portfw -a -P tcp -L fw_address 110 -R mailserver_address Is it possible to install Qmail (and possibly manage it subsequently) so that it can respond to port numbers and ? You can have qmail (I presume you mean qmail-smtpd) listen to any port you want, or any number of ports. What port it is running on does not affect in the least it's manageability. If so, what should I do? The INSTALL document describes how to start qmail-smtpd on port 25: 16. Set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf (all on one line): smtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd In that line, the first word 'smtp' corresponds to this line in /etc/services: smtp 25/tcpmail #Simple Mail Transfer If you wanted to run qmail on another port, pick an unused port from /etc/services, for example 2525. Create a line like this in /etc/services: mysmtp2525/tcp#Simple Mail Transfer Pick any name you like, as long as it's different that any of the others. Now, set up qmail-smtpd in /etc/inetd.conf, using this new service you invented (all on one line): mysmtp stream tcp nowait qmaild /var/qmail/bin/tcp-env tcp-env /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd Send a HUP signal to the inetd process, and your changes will be in place. See services(5), inetd(8). The author does prefer that people use his tcpserver tool, rather than inetd. See question 5.1 in the qmail FAQ. In that document, the line: tcpserver -u 7770 -g 2108 0 smtp /var/qmail/bin/qmail-smtpd is an example invokation. Again, the 'smtp' refers to the service entry in /etc/services, replace it with 'mysmtp', or whatever you've come up with... Thank you in advance. Good luck... Marco [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Brian 'you Bastard' Reichert[EMAIL PROTECTED] 37 Crystal Ave. #303Daytime number: (603) 434-6842 Derry NH 03038-1713 USA Intel architecture: the left-hand path
IP numbers in rcpthosts / locals ?
our qmail server has a local IP number in our LAN and a DNS entry for another IP number. our firewall passes smtp connections for the official IP to the local IP, works alright, except for the problem that mails to user@[officialIP] first didnt get accepted: - Transcript of session follows - ... while talking to [62.96.181.213]: RCPT To:w.zeikat@[62.96.181.213] 553 sorry, that domain isn't in my list of allowed rcpthosts (#5.7.1) 550 w.zeikat@[62.96.181.213]... User unknown after adding [62.96.181.213] in both ~/control/rcpthosts and ~/control/locals they dont bounce anymore, but dont get delivered either. how would i need to enter that IP and where? cheers wolfgang
Changing uid numbers with BruceG's autouidgid patch
If I'm running with BruceG's autouidgid patch and want to change the uids and
gids that qmail uses, am I correct in assuming this will work:
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/smtp stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/pop3d stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/imapd stop
vi /etc/passwd # Do my dirty business
vi /etc/shadow # Do more dirty business
cd /var/qmail
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown alias {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmaild {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmaill {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmailp {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmailq {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmailr {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmails {} \;
find . -follow -group oldnum -exec chgrp qmail {} \;
find . -follow -group oldnum -exec nofiles qmail {} \;
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/smtp start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/pop3d start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/imapd start
I wanted to ask before I try it.
Chris
--
Chris Garrigues http://www.DeepEddy.Com/~cwg/
virCIO http://www.virCIO.Com
4314 Avenue C
Austin, TX 78751-3709 +1 512 374 0500
My email address is an experiment in SPAM elimination. For an
explanation of what we're doing, see http://www.DeepEddy.Com/tms.html
Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft,
but they could get fired for relying on Microsoft.
PGP signature
Re: Changing uid numbers with BruceG's autouidgid patch
On Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 04:25:55PM -0500, Chris Garrigues wrote:
If I'm running with BruceG's autouidgid patch and want to change the uids and
gids that qmail uses, am I correct in assuming this will work:
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/smtp stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/pop3d stop
/etc/rc.d/init.d/imapd stop
vi /etc/passwd# Do my dirty business
vi /etc/shadow # Do more dirty business
cd /var/qmail
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown alias {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmaild {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmaill {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmailp {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmailq {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmailr {} \;
find . -follow -user oldnum -exec chown qmails {} \;
find . -follow -group oldnum -exec chgrp qmail {} \;
find . -follow -group oldnum -exec nofiles qmail {} \;
/etc/rc.d/init.d/qmail start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/smtp start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/pop3d start
/etc/rc.d/init.d/imapd start
I wanted to ask before I try it.
Replace "find ." with "find /var/qmail /etc/qmail/owners", and yes, it
should work. /etc/qmail/owners (a symlink from /var/qmail/owners)
contains a set of files that are stat'ted to determine the desired user
or group ID.
--
Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/
PGP signature
numbers
Does anyone have a pointer to a comparison of qmail/sendmail/postfix/... that is done at a real world server over a longer period of time? It should include bandwith use (including DNS) and performance data. The only thing I remember were some graphs about mailer timings (DNS lookup, start of delivery and so on). That doesn't give the real world picture everyone is talking about. Regards, Frank
Re: numbers
On Fri, Jul 21, 2000 at 07:10:08PM +0200, Frank Tegtmeyer wrote: Does anyone have a pointer to a comparison of qmail/sendmail/postfix/... that is done at a real world server over a longer period of time? In the real world, you will not find two sites with identical input load so that you can compare their output load. That is what benchmarks are for. It should include bandwith use (including DNS) and performance data. What kind of numbers do you want to see here? Packet-level bandwidth numbers, or the kind of numbers qmailanalog can produce? I run qmail on our corporate firewall as a transparent proxy for ALL SMTP mail going in or out of our network. That firewall also hosts our DNS cache. Right now we only have about 40-50 client sites behind the firewall, but it generates 10MB of qmail logs in under 10 days, and the same amount of dnscache logs in under 2 days for client lookups and 4 days for local (ie qmail) lookups. This (at this moment) represents 11204 messages to 13470 recipients, totalling 428,035,016 message bytes and 517,887,116 delivered bytes. You want stats? I've got 'em, at least for qmail. This site will never run sendmail. By year's end, we are looking to massively scale up the number of client sites, possibly by an order of magnitude. I think I might have to make my multilog limits a bit larger... The only thing I remember were some graphs about mailer timings (DNS lookup, start of delivery and so on). That doesn't give the real world picture everyone is talking about. I believe the graphs you are referring to are the ones at http://www.kyoto.wide.ad.jp/mta/eval1/eindex.html This person has gone to a fair amount of work to characterize how various MTAs deliver messages to mailing lists. However, this is not exactly what you are asking, and the graphs presented there are confusing sometimes due to differences in the scales between graphs. -- Bruce Guenter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://em.ca/~bruceg/ PGP signature
standardizing qmail uid and gid numbers
Is anyone trying to establish standard numbers for qmail uid and gid? Or is the "diversity of standards" for other system uids to diverse for such an effort to be effective?
Re: standardizing qmail uid and gid numbers
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Is anyone trying to establish standard numbers for qmail uid and gid? Or is the "diversity of standards" for other system uids to diverse for such an effort to be effective? Too diverse. Debian has some pre-assigned, but Redhat does not, and moreover refuses to, because J. Random Redhat sysadmin potentially could have created his or her own userids 100, and Redhat has an absolute requirement for any new version of their distribution to be backwards-compatible. This means no new pre-assigned userids *at all*. At least that's how it was a couple of years ago, and I don't expect they've changed that requirement. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | Government schools are so 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | bad that any rank amateur Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | can outdo them. Homeschool!
Re: Qmail (#numbers) : What is it?
From: BLURB3:* HCMSSC support---language-independent RFC 1893 error codes to ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/hcmssc.txt via ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto.html via ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/djb.html via www.qmail.org Earlier versions of the qmail tarball had this protocol in a text file. At 02:28 PM Friday 3/26/99, Scott D. Yelich wrote: When I get an error and get something like (#4.2.1) or (#5.7.1) ... what do those #s mean? I thought I knew, but apparently I was mistaken. Please do RTFM or FAQ me, but tell me which FM or FAQ to read? I can solve the problems -- but I'd like to know what the (#s) mean. Thank you. Scott
Re: Qmail (#numbers) : What is it?
On Fri, 26 Mar 1999, Mark Delany wrote: From: BLURB3:* HCMSSC support---language-independent RFC 1893 error codes ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto/hcmssc.txt ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/proto.html ftp://koobera.math.uic.edu/www/djb.html www.qmail.org Earlier versions of the qmail tarball had this protocol in a text file. AH! ok. Here is a sample answer I was looking for: Yes, RTFRFC @ http://sunsite.cnlab-switch.ch/ftp/doc/standard/rfc/18xx/1893 Scott
Relaying unknow IP numbers???
I am trying to allow people who connect trough ISPS to use my smtpd for relaying. Of course only if they are local-users (ie at my server). I found something with pop3-servers allowing the specific IP number for 10 minutes after a successful password user check. Anyone know anything bouth that? any other sugestions? thanx -- Christian Willy Asmussen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Some performance numbers
Joe Garcia writes: Is there any place that I can get some performance numbers Certainly: your own machine! Performance depends on many host-specific factors; it's easier to measure than to extrapolate. All you need to know about tuning is in http://pobox.com/~djb/qmail/faq/efficiency.html. ---Dan
Some performance numbers
Is there any place that I can get some performance numbers besides what Dan has. My boss says that these are probably very subjective. Joe
Re: Some performance numbers
Joe Garcia [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes on 13 January 1999 at 11:54:04 -0500 Is there any place that I can get some performance numbers besides what Dan has. My boss says that these are probably very subjective. I can understand why your boss may want performance numbers from somewhere other than the "vendor" of a tool, just on general principles -- but everything I've seen from Dan shows me a real emphasis on hard numbers, measured information, and *against* "subjective" measures of performance. I believe the numbers he quotes are based on specific actual experiments -- he says so directly for some of them, as I recall. -- David Dyer-Bennet [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ddb.com/~ddb (photos, sf) Minicon: http://www.mnstf.org/minicon http://ouroboros.demesne.com/ The Ouroboros Bookworms Join the 20th century before it's too late!
Re: Some performance numbers
We are seeing performance numbers that are pretty close. About two thirds of what Dan reports. Dirk On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 11:54:04AM -0500, Joe Garcia wrote: Is there any place that I can get some performance numbers besides what Dan has. My boss says that these are probably very subjective. Joe
RE: Some performance numbers
-Original Message- From: Joe Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 2:35 PM To: qmail-general Subject: RE: Some performance numbers Maybe I should state this with more detail. We are looking to use several qmail servers for incoming mail and several for outgoing, this is mainly for redundency. The inbound servers are all hooked up to a nice NetApp 720 via NFS. When a connection to an SMTP port is requested from the outside world, the firewall sends that request to one of the incoming machines. It knows Opps the "It" above refers to Qmail server that recieves the mail where to put it cause it talks to the local LDAP server on that Opps again the first "it" refers to the mail message machine. I know that the LDAP server is the slowest part here, but does this seem like a viable and fast configuration or have I just been starring at the monitor for too long again. Joe -Original Message- From: Joe Garcia [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 1999 11:54 AM To: qmail-general Subject: Some performance numbers Is there any place that I can get some performance numbers besides what Dan has. My boss says that these are probably very subjective. Joe
RE: Some performance numbers
*Snip* Since you already have a Netapp, mount the same mailstore volume from both of your servers, and then load-balance the incoming mail between the two. Storing mail in a Maildir over NFS is perfectly safe, and you don't need to bother with LDAP. How do the two machines know that the incoming mail is a local user without a central database to look them up in?? Even if I don't use LDAP I would have to use NIS, NIS+ or some sort of replicated database. Joe
Re: Some performance numbers
Joe Garcia writes: *Snip* Since you already have a Netapp, mount the same mailstore volume from both of your servers, and then load-balance the incoming mail between the two. Storing mail in a Maildir over NFS is perfectly safe, and you don't need to bother with LDAP. How do the two machines know that the incoming mail is a local user without a central database to look them up in?? Even if I don't use LDAP I would have to use NIS, NIS+ or some sort of replicated database. You mount the *same* mailstore on both servers. Both machines have accounts for all the users, have the exact same user base, and mount the same volume from the Netapp. All users are local on both machines. Both machines have access to the entire mailstore for every user. The incoming mail load is shared by both servers. If one server catches fire, you still have mail access, although things might get a bit backed up until you put out the fire.
Re: Some performance numbers
Joe Garcia writes: Maybe I should state this with more detail. We are looking to use several qmail servers for incoming mail and several for outgoing, this is mainly for redundency. The inbound servers are all hooked up to a nice NetApp 720 via NFS. When a connection to an SMTP port is requested from the outside world, the firewall sends that request to one of the incoming machines. It knows where to put it cause it talks to the local LDAP server on that machine. I know that the LDAP server is the slowest part here, but does this seem like a viable and fast configuration or have I just been starring at the monitor for too long again. Since you already have a Netapp, mount the same mailstore volume from both of your servers, and then load-balance the incoming mail between the two. Storing mail in a Maildir over NFS is perfectly safe, and you don't need to bother with LDAP.
