On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
>Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
>(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
>5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
10ns is much faster than 5.3ms... It works, I've done it, it's reason
Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> >(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> >5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> 10ns is much faster than 5.3m
am, and a 512MB ramdisk. No swap was
being used during the tests.
Jay
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Reifschneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 12:12 PM
> To: Greg Cope
> Cc: qmail mailing list
> Subject: Re: Using a RAMDISK for /
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 06:43:25PM +, Greg Cope wrote:
>Would this still be a good idea ? As a 256 meg dim is 108 UK pounds
>sterling - or less than a SCSI card ...
I can't say... I used such a setup on a system with 1GB RAM sending
out 1+million e-mails of the sort you are. It was more
Thus spake Greg Cope ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> (as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> 5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
Why would you expect a speed increase at all?
And even if there were one, would anyo
On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 08:31:48PM +0100, Felix von Leitner wrote:
> Thus spake Greg Cope ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> > (as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> > 5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> Why w
Felix von Leitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes on 13 December 2000 at 20:31:48 +0100
> Thus spake Greg Cope ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> > (as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> > 5.3 ms seek
David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Um, most reporting measured results from optimizing high-traffic
> qmail-based mail servers have found that disk activity on the queue
> disk is the first limit they hit.
How about, if the first delivery fails, pass it off to a server with
some disks. Why not pre-pro
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:46:51PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>
> > Um, most reporting measured results from optimizing high-traffic
> > qmail-based mail servers have found that disk activity on the queue
> > disk is the first limit they hit.
>
>
> How about, if the
On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 11:56:54PM +, Mark Delany wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2001 at 05:46:51PM -0600, David L. Nicol wrote:
> > David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> >
> > > Um, most reporting measured results from optimizing high-traffic
> > > qmail-based mail servers have found that disk activity on th
10 matches
Mail list logo
