On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 03:24:01PM +0200, Aur?lien Beaujean wrote:
So mails are delivered to your backend mailstores by smtp ou lmtp ?
Yep. The front-end relays were delivering mail to the backend via SMTP
(using a qmail-smtpc patch that I wrote, to help integrate the new
system with our old
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 00:17, Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:41:43PM +1000,
a message of 39 lines which said:
Getting servers that each have 200G or 300G of storage is easy.
For a mail server, it means either 1G per user (like gmail gives you)
for only
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:04:16PM +0200,
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 28 lines which said:
Debian does not need the storage for developers to store their mail
on the project's servers.
Sorry, wrong thread. The thread I launched on big mail systems have
nothing to do
Le mardi 19 octobre 2004 à 17:18, Russell Coker écrivait:
A gmail service is entirely different to an ISP mail server. The
common use of an ISP mail server is to allow download and delete via
pop.
This thread is a « proposal for a webmail service » so 1Go should be
appropriate and in the wind
On Tue, Oct 12, 2004 at 11:18:55PM +0200,
Stephane Bortzmeyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 19 lines which said:
I'm currently writing a proposal for a webmail service for, say, 50
000 to 500 000 users. I'm looking for description of existing big
mail systems, using technologies like
Le samedi 16 octobre 2004 à 21:46, Russell Coker écrivait:
Is there any way to optimise PHP for speed? Maybe PHP5 is worth trying?
We uses php/zend mmcache. With it, we freed 50% of CPU of the machines
which run IMP.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
Le vendredi 15 octobre 2004 à 13:13, Paul Dwerryhouse écrivait:
We don't use NFS. Only the LDAP servers are using 2.6.x - everything
else is still on 2.4.
So mails are delivered to your backend mailstores by smtp ou lmtp ? No
NFS means also that pop/imap daemons are running on the backend
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:41:43PM +1000,
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
Getting servers that each have 200G or 300G of storage is easy.
For a mail server, it means either 1G per user (like gmail gives you)
for only 300 users or 10M (much less than
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 04:17:14PM +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:41:43PM +1000,
Russell Coker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
a message of 39 lines which said:
Getting servers that each have 200G or 300G of storage is easy.
For a mail server, it means either 1G
## Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Getting servers that each have 200G or 300G of storage is easy.
For a mail server, it means either 1G per user (like gmail gives you)
for only 300 users or 10M (much less than hotmail) for 30 000
users. It is probably not enough for a Hotmail-like
On Mon, Oct 18, 2004 at 05:44:08PM +0200, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
## Wouter Verhelst ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
Debian does not need the storage for developers to store their mail on
the project's servers.
This thread is not about Debian's mail service.
Sorry, I was indeed confused.
--
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 02:02, Christoph Moench-Tegeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
## Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
So, now we would like Russel to explain why he does not like SAN.
He probably doesn't advocate using SAN instead of local disks if you do
not have a good
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 20:08, Paul Dwerryhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:56:21PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
The machines were all running 2.4.2x last time I was there, but they
may be moving to 2.6.x now.
All the stores, relays and proxies are still on 2.4.x, but the
On Sat, Oct 16, 2004 at 09:41:43PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
There's less cables for idiots to trip over or otherwise break
(don't ask),
I dare to ask :-)
Marcin
--
Marcin Owsiany [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://marcin.owsiany.pl/
GnuPG: 1024D/60F41216 FE67 DA2D 0ACA FC5E 3F75 D6F6
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004, Russell Coker wrote:
Getting servers that each have 200G or 300G of storage is easy. Local
Make it a few TBs...
though). Having multiple back-end servers with local disks reduces the risks
(IMHO). There's less cables for idiots to trip over or otherwise break
It
Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
I do not need general advice (such as Postfix rules, Exim sucks or
Maildirs are faster) but actual description of existing and running
systems. Googling seems inefficient for that purpose and I presume
that many interesting papers are only in closed and paying conference
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 06:56:21PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote:
The machines were all running 2.4.2x last time I was there, but they
may be moving to 2.6.x now.
All the stores, relays and proxies are still on 2.4.x, but the LDAP
servers are now on 2.6.x (mainly because I could, not for any
On Fri, Oct 15, 2004 at 12:30:56PM +0200, Aurélien Beaujean wrote:
Your backend mailstores are running NFS on Linux 2.6 ? Don't you have
any performance problems ?
We don't use NFS. Only the LDAP servers are using 2.6.x - everything
else is still on 2.4.
Do you know how many mails you receive
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
## Russell Coker ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
SAN and NAS are best avoided IMHO.
NAS is *always* best avoided on anything that has mail in the description,
IMHO.
We put our mailboxes (about 100GB per server with cyrus IMAP)
in a
## Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
We put our mailboxes (about 100GB per server with cyrus IMAP)
in a fibrechannel-connected SAN (there're some EMC cabinets in
That's how it is usually done with Cyrus IMAP (since upstream makes it quite
clear that you are either stupid or a
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
So, now we would like Russel to explain why he does not like SAN.
He probably doesn't advocate using SAN instead of local disks if you do not
have a good reason to use SAN. If that's it, I *do* agree with him. Don't
use SANs just for the
## Henrique de Moraes Holschuh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
So, now we would like Russel to explain why he does not like SAN.
He probably doesn't advocate using SAN instead of local disks if you do not
have a good reason to use SAN. If that's it, I *do* agree with him. Don't
use SANs just for the
I'm currently writing a proposal for a webmail service for, say, 50
000 to 500 000 users. I'm looking for description of existing big
mail systems, using technologies like scalemail
(http://scalemail.sourceforge.net/), specially with an emphasis on the
storage subsystem for the servers (my weak
23 matches
Mail list logo
