disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't
realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is
"simply not true"? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything I said to
be untrue. Quite the contrary, you reinforced my statements.
Actually the only sto
On 7/8/2012 5:16 PM, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
> On 2012-07-08 23:29, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 7/8/2012 8:27 AM, Patrick Domack wrote:
>>>
>>> Quoting Wojciech Puchar :
>>>
> I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks
> good . . How often can a real-world disk
Quoting Wojciech Puchar :
is random seek latency. And the faster the spindle, the lower the
latency. Thus 15k Seagate SAS drives are excellent candidates for mail
store duty, as are any 10k or 15k drives.
definitely not counting by $/IOPS rate. even worse looking with $/GB
which is more imp
is random seek latency. And the faster the spindle, the lower the
latency. Thus 15k Seagate SAS drives are excellent candidates for mail
store duty, as are any 10k or 15k drives.
definitely not counting by $/IOPS rate. even worse looking with $/GB which
is more important unless you make <1GB ma
On 7/8/2012 8:27 AM, Patrick Domack wrote:
>
> Quoting Wojciech Puchar :
>
>>> I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks
>>> good . . How often can a real-world disk actually deliver the 6Gbs
>>> when only a minority of disk reads are long sequential runs on the
>>> platt
On 2012-07-08 5:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
nobody is using 100 MBit for a SAN
And no one who is using a SAN is using 100Mb on the LAN either. In fact,
I'd say that even 99.9% of all LANs - even small (wired) home LANs are Gb...
--
Best regards,
Charles
Quoting Wojciech Puchar :
I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks
good . . How often can a real-world disk actually deliver the 6Gbs
when only a minority of disk reads are long sequential runs on the
platters?
none of hard drives can saturate 1.5Gb/s
There are
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 8.7.2012, at 10.07, J E Lyon wrote:
>
> > I think some of the things Timo does, he is able to do in his sleep . .
>
> What's annoying is that I sometimes do, and all the hard work gets lost
> somewhere to the dream world :(
Maybe it's just getting sorted out in your un
there is more than the connection speed
6Gbsdo not help you much as long the physical disk can not
write in this speed and more concurretn writes making
this worser - so there are many things like big battery backed
caches fon a SAN which are imprtant for OVERALL performance
with cache as big a
Hi,
included is patch which adds support for calculating fs quota from hardlimit
where softlimit is unset. I'm usually not setting softlimit on my server
causing dovecot work incorrectly (not reporting quota at all).
Regards,
Jan Friesse
dovecot-0001-Support-for-fs-hard-limit.patch
Descripti
On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 07.07.2012 16:26, schrieb Malloc Kilobyte:
> > Appreciating all Dovecot rich features, I lack just one. And this is the
> > ability to customize the "quota exceeded, message rejected" message. I
> know
> > I can set it's default content
Am 08.07.2012 09:27, schrieb Steve Litt:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:36:02 +0200, Reindl Harald said:
>> to believe under really high load a local storage
>> is faster at the end is bullshit!
>
> Can one even argue on one side or the other without knowing the speed
> of the network, and how much co
I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks good . . How
often can a real-world disk actually deliver the 6Gbs when only a minority of
disk reads are long sequential runs on the platters?
none of hard drives can saturate 1.5Gb/s
On 8 Jul 2012, at 08:36, Steve Litt wrote:
>> Can one even argue on one side or the other without knowing the speed
>> of the network, and how much contention is on that network?
>>
>> My experience is that with a 100Mbs network, local is faster, although
>> I've never had a SAN, so to speak, on
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 03:27:55 -0400, Steve Litt said:
> On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:36:02 +0200, Reindl Harald said:
> >
> >
> > Am 07.07.2012 11:23, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
> > >>> Fine. i understand that. What i am suggesting is not making
> > >>> large LUNs. you get the best performance with directl
On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 11:36:02 +0200, Reindl Harald said:
>
>
> Am 07.07.2012 11:23, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
> >>> Fine. i understand that. What i am suggesting is not making large
> >>> LUNs. you get the best performance with directly attaching disks
> >>> to your machine.
> >>
> >> That's simply
On 8.7.2012, at 10.07, J E Lyon wrote:
> I think some of the things Timo does, he is able to do in his sleep . .
What's annoying is that I sometimes do, and all the hard work gets lost
somewhere to the dream world :(
On 8 Jul 2012, at 08:00, Joseph Tam wrote:
> Timo Sirainen writes:
>
>>> #0 i_panic (format=0xff2302f8 "Trying to allocate %u bytes") at
>>> failures.c:259
>>
>> Fixed: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/ea18b2ddb67b
>>
>> Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 05:52:03 +0300
>
> 2 hours after I repo
Timo Sirainen writes:
#0 i_panic (format=0xff2302f8 "Trying to allocate %u bytes") at
failures.c:259
#1 0xff2068a4 in pool_alloconly_malloc (pool=0x60330, size=0) at
mempool-alloconly.c:259
#2 0x00018248 in client_uidls_save (client=0x54d28) at
pop3-commands.c:761
19 matches
Mail list logo
