Hi,
Well... I'm not sure if you saw the "top" output I sent to the list a
while back, but the swap isn't touched at all. The 128M ram seems to be
sufficient at this time. I'm not sure that throwing more memory at it
would help much, would it? I think even if more ram is put in, it will
just use a
Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
help keep other DNS demands to a minimum.
The mail server will chew up a load of memor
Memory memory memory! True, memory is not currently a limiting factor,
but it likely could be if he were running BIND locally. As for making
sure that the server is not authoratative for other domains, that will
help keep other DNS demands to a minimum.
The mail server will chew up a load of memo
Hey guys,
I'm fairly new to the LDAP game. I've read the list archives a bit, and
found a lot of good info. One thing that is still eluding me is the the
directory structure itself.
I am trying to set up LDAP as my backend for several services: SMTP
(Postfix), IMAP/POP (Cyrus
Hey guys,
I'm fairly new to the LDAP game. I've read the list archives a bit, and
found a lot of good info. One thing that is still eluding me is the the
directory structure itself.
I am trying to set up LDAP as my backend for several services: SMTP
(Postfix), IMAP/POP (Cyrus
Thank you all for your perfectly clear answers and help, i think youve given me
enough juice to go make a router:)
Yes, I was not very clear in my first post (although I said I didnt know
anything about it) but you guys
really focused me So i think my provider gives no CSU/DSU (he asked
m
It is strange that we each get such different results.
I haven't run these in totally sanitized environments (haven't had the
luxury or time to do so) so I can't say mine were really scientific, but i
just looked at the real results of each command.
I switch back to using 4Kb readahead as you sug
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> Today I played around with hdparm to see if I could tweak some
>
> Specifically, I set /sbin/hdparm -a4 -c3 -d1 -m16 -u1 /dev/hdc:
>
>-a Get/set sector count for filesystem read-ahead.
> This is used to improve perform
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:26, Jason Lim wrote:
> This statement makes me wonder:
> "Also even the slowest part of a 45G drive will be twice as fast as the
> fastest part of a 15G drive."
>
> Are you sure? I never heard this before... might be a 1% difference
There is a huge difference. I have tes
I have also thought about that... but if you have a look at Qmail's
website (http://www.qmail.org) then you'll see that a number of extremely
large mail companies (hotmail for one) uses qmail for... get this...
outgoing mail. They could've easily chosen sendmail, postfix (maybe it
wasn't around whe
It is bad practice to respond to your own posts, but I will make an
exception for this one.
The problem got fixed by installing 2.2r3.
Haim.
Haim Dimermanas wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to install Potato (2.2) on a system with 1Gb of RAM (Dell
> 6350). It gives me crap when the
BTW, I think I noticed something as well (before and after the below
optimization).
sh-2.05# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 17957
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 1229
With everything queue running off one hard disk (disk 1), I never noticed
such a few emails not even being able to be
This statement makes me wonder:
"Also even the slowest part of a 45G drive will be twice as fast as the
fastest part of a 15G drive."
Are you sure? I never heard this before... might be a 1% difference there,
but twice as fast? The 15G runs at 7200rpms, and I assume the 45G also
does unless its a
I agree with you that splitting the mail queue to another server wouldn't
help, especially since you've seen the top results, and know that it isn't
very heavily loaded with other jobs in the first place. So I think you are
very correct in saying that the hard disk is the limit here.
Today I playe
Thank you all for your perfectly clear answers and help, i think youve given me
enough juice to go make a router:)
Yes, I was not very clear in my first post (although I said I didnt know
anything about it) but you guys
really focused me So i think my provider gives no CSU/DSU (he asked
It is strange that we each get such different results.
I haven't run these in totally sanitized environments (haven't had the
luxury or time to do so) so I can't say mine were really scientific, but i
just looked at the real results of each command.
I switch back to using 4Kb readahead as you su
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:14, Jason Lim wrote:
> Today I played around with hdparm to see if I could tweak some
>
> Specifically, I set /sbin/hdparm -a4 -c3 -d1 -m16 -u1 /dev/hdc:
>
>-a Get/set sector count for filesystem read-ahead.
> This is used to improve perfor
On Friday 08 June 2001 16:26, Jason Lim wrote:
> This statement makes me wonder:
> "Also even the slowest part of a 45G drive will be twice as fast as the
> fastest part of a 15G drive."
>
> Are you sure? I never heard this before... might be a 1% difference
There is a huge difference. I have te
It is bad practice to respond to your own posts, but I will make an
exception for this one.
The problem got fixed by installing 2.2r3.
Haim.
Haim Dimermanas wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to install Potato (2.2) on a system with 1Gb of RAM (Dell
> 6350). It gives me crap when the
BTW, I think I noticed something as well (before and after the below
optimization).
sh-2.05# qmail-qstat
messages in queue: 17957
messages in queue but not yet preprocessed: 1229
With everything queue running off one hard disk (disk 1), I never noticed
such a few emails not even being able to be
> Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
> moderately large list of domains (eg. aol), so the local DNS server
> would've cache them already anyway.
This has been a long thread so forgive me if this has already been
discussed but...
If you are usually delivering mult
This statement makes me wonder:
"Also even the slowest part of a 45G drive will be twice as fast as the
fastest part of a 15G drive."
Are you sure? I never heard this before... might be a 1% difference there,
but twice as fast? The 15G runs at 7200rpms, and I assume the 45G also
does unless its a
I agree with you that splitting the mail queue to another server wouldn't
help, especially since you've seen the top results, and know that it isn't
very heavily loaded with other jobs in the first place. So I think you are
very correct in saying that the hard disk is the limit here.
Today I play
I have also thought about that... but if you have a look at Qmail's
website (http://www.qmail.org) then you'll see that a number of extremely
large mail companies (hotmail for one) uses qmail for... get this...
outgoing mail. They could've easily chosen sendmail, postfix (maybe it
wasn't around wh
Rich Puhek wrote:
>
> Dell RAID controllers are great... As long as you have the right info
> handy. Kevin Traas put together everything you need at:
>
> http://www.merilus.com/~kevin/aacraid.html
>
> ...Also note whether you have a PERC2 or PERC3.
> Dell RAID controllers are great... As long
On Friday 08 June 2001 12:25, Jason Lim wrote:
> The network is connected via 100Mb to a switch, so server to server
> connections would be at that limit. Even 10Mb wouldn't be a problem as
> I don't think that much data would be crossing the cable.. would it?
10Mb shouldn't be a problem for DNS.
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jason Lim wrote:
> We also use PR3000s with various WAN cards. Cyclades have wonder products
> and great support. I recommend them. www.cyclades.com
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
Indeed, I recommend them as well :)
Although we've had some hard times getting the PR4000 RAS to work
I agree.
I always thought that doing a local lookup would be far faster than doing
one on a remote dns cache. We use bind, and set the forwarders to 2 other
DNS servers that are only lightly loaded and on the same network.
Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
modera
On Friday 08 June 2001 05:47, Rich Puhek wrote:
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS?
> Quite often you'll find that DNS lookups are severely limiting the
> performance of something like a mailing list. M
We also use PR3000s with various WAN cards. Cyclades have wonder products
and great support. I recommend them. www.cyclades.com
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Teun Vink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicolas Bougues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "debian lis
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Nicolas Bougues wrote:
[snip]
>
> I believe you're talking about a T1/E1 link. Basically, the telco
> brings you the T1/E1 trunk. Then, depending on the country/operator,
> they provide you with a CSU/DSU, or not.
>
> It they do, the CSU/DSU will provide a sync serial port, e
Hi,
The network is connected via 100Mb to a switch, so server to server
connections would be at that limit. Even 10Mb wouldn't be a problem as I
don't think that much data would be crossing the cable.. would it?
As for the "single machine" issue, that would depend. If you're talking
about either
Hi,
Yes that is correct. The design of qmail forces a connection for each
email message. Changing that behaviour would require massive patching.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Papszun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich Puhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL P
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 at 22:47:09 -0500, Rich Puhek wrote:
[...]
> Also, there are probably some optimizations you can do for queue sort
> order. I'm most familiar with Sendmail, not qmail, so I don't know the
> exact settings, but try to process the queue according to recipient
> domain. That way, y
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 06:08:17PM +, Alex wrote:
> A question to you all:
>
> Now, as far as ive gotten by my research, one needs to buy a WAN card
> that understands the HDLC protocol or the SyncPPP protocol (depending on
> your provider). Ive foung at least three that run under linux.
>
On Friday 08 June 2001 10:49, Brian May wrote:
> Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
> Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
> Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
> Russell> productively be done to the main
> Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
> moderately large list of domains (eg. aol), so the local DNS server
> would've cache them already anyway.
This has been a long thread so forgive me if this has already been
discussed but...
If you are usually delivering mul
Maybe a local caching nameserver will help here as well.
(Just a quick though.)
Cheers, Marcel
Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 Jun 2001, at 22:47:
> By the way,
>
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS
Rich Puhek wrote:
>
> Dell RAID controllers are great... As long as you have the right info
> handy. Kevin Traas put together everything you need at:
>
> http://www.merilus.com/~kevin/aacraid.html
>
> ...Also note whether you have a PERC2 or PERC3.
> Dell RAID controllers are great... As long
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
Russell> productively be done to t
On Friday 08 June 2001 12:25, Jason Lim wrote:
> The network is connected via 100Mb to a switch, so server to server
> connections would be at that limit. Even 10Mb wouldn't be a problem as
> I don't think that much data would be crossing the cable.. would it?
10Mb shouldn't be a problem for DNS.
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Jason Lim wrote:
> We also use PR3000s with various WAN cards. Cyclades have wonder products
> and great support. I recommend them. www.cyclades.com
>
> Sincerely,
> Jason
>
Indeed, I recommend them as well :)
Although we've had some hard times getting the PR4000 RAS to wor
I agree.
I always thought that doing a local lookup would be far faster than doing
one on a remote dns cache. We use bind, and set the forwarders to 2 other
DNS servers that are only lightly loaded and on the same network.
Additionally, as far as I can see, most emails get sent to the same
moder
On Friday 08 June 2001 05:47, Rich Puhek wrote:
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DNS?
> Quite often you'll find that DNS lookups are severely limiting the
> performance of something like a mailing list.
We also use PR3000s with various WAN cards. Cyclades have wonder products
and great support. I recommend them. www.cyclades.com
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Teun Vink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Nicolas Bougues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Alex" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "debian li
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Nicolas Bougues wrote:
[snip]
>
> I believe you're talking about a T1/E1 link. Basically, the telco
> brings you the T1/E1 trunk. Then, depending on the country/operator,
> they provide you with a CSU/DSU, or not.
>
> It they do, the CSU/DSU will provide a sync serial port,
Hi,
The network is connected via 100Mb to a switch, so server to server
connections would be at that limit. Even 10Mb wouldn't be a problem as I
don't think that much data would be crossing the cable.. would it?
As for the "single machine" issue, that would depend. If you're talking
about either
Hi,
Yes that is correct. The design of qmail forces a connection for each
email message. Changing that behaviour would require massive patching.
Sincerely,
Jason
- Original Message -
From: "Tomasz Papszun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rich Puhek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "Jason Lim" <[EMAIL
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 at 22:47:09 -0500, Rich Puhek wrote:
[...]
> Also, there are probably some optimizations you can do for queue sort
> order. I'm most familiar with Sendmail, not qmail, so I don't know the
> exact settings, but try to process the queue according to recipient
> domain. That way,
On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 06:08:17PM +, Alex wrote:
> A question to you all:
>
> Now, as far as ive gotten by my research, one needs to buy a WAN card
> that understands the HDLC protocol or the SyncPPP protocol (depending on
> your provider). Ive foung at least three that run under linux.
On 8 Jun 2001, Alex wrote:
> A question to you all:
>
> Im sort of in a tight spot here. I want to connect my enterprise through
> a cable line provided by a big carrier. They call it "an internet
> link".well a modem can be an internet link but ive never needed a
> 1,200 dls. device to route
On Friday 08 June 2001 10:49, Brian May wrote:
> Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
> Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
> Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
> Russell> productively be done to the mai
Maybe a local caching nameserver will help here as well.
(Just a quick though.)
Cheers, Marcel
Rich Puhek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7 Jun 2001, at 22:47:
> By the way,
>
> In addition to checking the disk usage, memory, and the other
> suggestions that have come up on the list, have you looked at DN
> "Russell" == Russell Coker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Russell> If the NFS server has the same disk system then you will
Russell> only make things worse. Anything you could do to give
Russell> the NFS server better IO performance could more
Russell> productively be done to
The DUL is the Dial UP user List maintined by Paul Vixies's Mailabuse
system.
Their web site is http://www.mailabuse.com/.
They are now with the closure of ORBS the main (I believe only) source for
abuse originators on the net.
They were first well known for the 'RBL' realtime blackhole list ) f
The DUL is the Dial UP user List maintined by Paul Vixies's Mailabuse
system.
Their web site is http://www.mailabuse.com/.
They are now with the closure of ORBS the main (I believe only) source for
abuse originators on the net.
They were first well known for the 'RBL' realtime blackhole list )
On 8 Jun 2001, Alex wrote:
> A question to you all:
>
> Im sort of in a tight spot here. I want to connect my enterprise through
> a cable line provided by a big carrier. They call it "an internet
> link".well a modem can be an internet link but ive never needed a
> 1,200 dls. device to rout
57 matches
Mail list logo
