Hi,
I setup freebsd4.2 with qmail in my intranet, I used
192.168...IP address; and I have
a DNS server with 202.96...IP address to provide name service
to dialup users(outside), the FB and DNS are connected with a router. I hope
dialup users could send and receive
mail. When the
In the immortal words of Oezguer Kesim ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> reiserfs is available for many distributions. But even if not, it should
> not take more than half an hour on decent machines to patch a decent kernel
> and run the a new kernel with reiserfs included.
Honestly, I can't consider re
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> The inferiority was noted by yourself, so I don't see a flamebait here.
I think you're reading a little too much into what I'm saying. "Not
as good as veritas" is a far cry from "inferior," and is still a long
sight better than
Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> In 1-2 years, when reiserfs/xfs/jfs/ext3 or whatever is integrated
> into the mainline linux distributions, this will become much less of
> an issue. (Doesn't really address that LVM portion, but that's
> probably a lot less critical for most peop
Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Can you please expand on how an inferior file system for Solaris is in
> > any way "a big win over the various free unixes"? Especially under the
> > assumption of a constrained budget, please.
> Could we please dispense with the flamebait?
The
In the immortal words of Felix von Leitner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's
> > > ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list.
> > Well, like I said, it's not necessar
Thus spake Nathan J. Mehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > Solaris 7 does come with a FS that journals metadata, but no one's
> > ever benchmarked it's performance with a large todo for the list.
> Well, like I said, it's not necessarily best-of-breed, it's just
> there, which is a big win over the variou
In the immortal words of John White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> Solaris 7 definitely doesn't come with DiskSuite as part of the
> base distribution. I know that I certainly don't have it.
Hrm. Okay, I could have sworn that 2.7 was being bundled with
DiskSuite, but I don't have a media package ar
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 04:56:28PM -0400, Nathan J. Mehl wrote:
> In the immortal words of John White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> >
> > However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
> > of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
>
> Three words: journalling fil
In the immortal words of John White ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
> of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
Three words: journalling file system.
Four more words: integrated logical volume manager.
Solstice Dis
On Tue, Sep 12, 2000 at 06:22:02PM -0700, John White wrote:
> Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats
> network processes.
>
> All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris
> latform.
>
> However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not
On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 08:56:35AM +0800, Brian Baquiran wrote:
> I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon
>DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance
>(http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html)
>
> "publicfile achieves similar results under othe
Better OS gurus than I can comment on exactly how Solaris bloats
network processes.
All I'll say is that qmail still performs admirably on the Solaris
latform.
However, I question the decision to use Solaris x86. I'm not aware
of any advantage there is over something like Linux or xBSD.
John
I was considering setting up qmail on a Solaris8 x86 machine until I stumbled upon
DJB's notes regarding publicfile's performance
(http://cr.yp.to/publicfile/performance.html)
"publicfile achieves similar results under other operating systems, except Solaris.
Solaris adds an incredible amount
On Sun, Jul 02, 2000 at 01:58:40PM -0700, Eric Cox wrote:
[snip]
>
> Just out of curiosity, has anyone tried loading up a machine with
> gobs of RAM and then placing the queue on a ramdisk? I know this
> would be dangerous for a production machine though, and I don't even
> know if the whold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:54:55AM -0500, Ian Layton wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> Your solution is to put your queue on a disk subsystem that can sync
> at the rate you want to submit (and deliver). Some do this with a faster
> disk, some do this with a partition that is
Ian Layton wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> I have recently installed Qmail on an Alpha box for my boss. I got it to
> send a simulated 100K message per hour through a dirty benchmark I wrote. My
> boss wants more than that. I believe that the slow up is in qmail-inject. Is
> there any way to make qmail-in
> Your solution is to put your queue on a disk subsystem that can sync
> at the rate you want to submit (and deliver). Some do this with a faster
> disk, some do this with a partition that is spread across multiple
> spindles. How you do this depends on your OS type and what sort
> of hardware you
On Thu, Jun 29, 2000 at 11:54:55AM -0500, Ian Layton wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have recently installed Qmail on an Alpha box for my boss. I got it to
> send a simulated 100K message per hour through a dirty benchmark I wrote. My
> boss wants more than that. I believe that the slow up is in qmail-inje
Hello.
I have recently installed Qmail on an Alpha box for my boss. I got it to
send a simulated 100K message per hour through a dirty benchmark I wrote. My
boss wants more than that. I believe that the slow up is in qmail-inject. Is
there any way to make qmail-inject faster or bypass it totally?
Brian Masney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We are currently using qmail 1.03 on a Sun E450 running Solaris 8. We
>are having a problem with mail taking a very long time to be delivered
>locally (sometimes in excess of 6 or 8 hours). The load on the box isn't
>that bad at all, it just seems that
>We are currently using qmail 1.03 on a Sun E450 running
> Solaris 8. We are having a problem with mail taking a very
> long time to be delivered locally (sometimes in excess of
> 6 or 8 hours).
Check your trigger:
http://web.infoave.net/~dsill/lwq.html#trigger
--
gowen --
We are currently using qmail 1.03 on a Sun E450 running Solaris 8. We
are having a problem with mail taking a very long time to be delivered
locally (sometimes in excess of 6 or 8 hours). The load on the box isn't
that bad at all, it just seems that qmail isn't sending out the mail in a
timely
On Fri, May 12, 2000 at 12:40:28AM -0600, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 10:54:37PM -0700, John White wrote:
> > If you're looking for queue speed, you want RAID 1+0 with a
> > NVRAM cache to accellerate the small block writes.
>
> zeroseek would be even cooler.
Don't use zer
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 10:54:37PM -0700, John White wrote:
> If you're looking for queue speed, you want RAID 1+0 with a
> NVRAM cache to accellerate the small block writes.
zeroseek would be even cooler.
Neil
--
There are two rules for success in life:
Rule 1: Don't tell people everythi
On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 09:01:27AM -0400, Steve Craft wrote:
> To throw my $.02 at this issue, if this is looking like a "low level" speed
> issue, why not tinker with the hardware? Taking the two disks that hold
> /var and putting them on a RAID0 set should give you a serious speed boost
> witho
To throw my $.02 at this issue, if this is looking like a "low level" speed
issue, why not tinker with the hardware? Taking the two disks that hold
/var and putting them on a RAID0 set should give you a serious speed boost
without touching your (otherwise working) qmail config.
-Original
At 02:40 AM 5/10/2000, Neil Schemenauer wrote:
>You should find the bottleneck before you jump to any
>conclusions. What version of the Linux kernel are you using?
2.2.12 compiled with higher process limit (4090), higher file and inode
limits (16000/48000), smp support, and drivers for SCSI and
On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 10:09:09AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Boy a few early morning typos here. Some corrections:
> While it's hard to tell without looking, by guess is that your inbound
> submission rate is killing the spindle that your disk lives on.
That would be "that your queue live
On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 01:30:53AM -0700, Flemming Funch wrote:
> At 09:39 AM 5/9/2000, Matthew B. Henniges wrote:
> >On a dual celeron 466 with 512Mb ram. and 3 10k scsi drives (one for
> >/var/qmail/queue, one for /var/log, one for /usr/home)
> >concurrency remote at 500
> >concurrency local at
Are you using syslogd ?
RDA.-
-Original Message-
From: Flemming Funch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 5:28 AM
Subject: RE: QMail Performance Question & Miscellaneous Issues
>At 09:39 AM 5/9/2000, Matthe
On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 01:30:53AM -0700, Flemming Funch wrote:
> So .. eh... would it likely be my disk I/O that slows it down
> (how do I test that?), or should I be switching to FreeBSD, or
> am I doing something stupid?
You should find the bottleneck before you jump to any
conclusions. What
At 09:39 AM 5/9/2000, Matthew B. Henniges wrote:
>On a dual celeron 466 with 512Mb ram. and 3 10k scsi drives (one for
>/var/qmail/queue, one for /var/log, one for /usr/home)
>concurrency remote at 500
>concurrency local at 50
>FreeBSD 3.4-S
>localhost dnscache
>
>It will push 12 Million on a good
>I have a question about qmail regarding its mail handling capacity.
>How many remote emails can qmail send simulataneously, assuming it is run
>on a Dual-CPU PIII 500Mhz with 512Mb RAM and a SCSI hard disk? The internet
>bandwidth is 10 Mbps.
On a dual celeron 466 with 512Mb ram. and 3 10k
"Bryan White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Do you have any feel for how to evaluate what is an optimum number of
>remotes?
Measure the delivery rate at various settings of concurrencyremote.
Choose the setting that yields the highest delivery rate.
>At 400 remotes I still have 80% CPU idle time.
On Mon, May 08, 2000 at 10:56:43AM -0400, Bryan White wrote:
> >It's not even that hard, that was the first time I had ever fiddled
> with
> > the Kernel source. We went to 4096, which should allow for quite a few
> > qmail-remotes. : )
>
> Do you have any feel for how to evaluate what is an
> The documentation of RedHat.com is technically accurate, just not
> complete. There are two limits. One is the total number of
> files handles for all processes. This is adjustable through
> /proc/sys/fs/file-max. The other limit is the number of file
> handles opened by a single process. T
>It's not even that hard, that was the first time I had ever fiddled
with
> the Kernel source. We went to 4096, which should allow for quite a few
> qmail-remotes. : )
Do you have any feel for how to evaluate what is an optimum number of
remotes? At 400 remotes I still have 80% CPU idle tim
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 01:17:13PM -0600, Steve Wolfe wrote:
> Despite the docs at RedHat.com, saying how easy it is to
> increase the file-handle limit on the new kernels, I found that
> it simply didn't work. Editing the source and recompiling the
> kernel (as you had to in older kernels) did th
> Another allows increasing the maximum number of
> concurrent remotes beyond 250. The patch allows up to 500 but that limit
> seems to be linux related.
I would imagine that to be because Linux by default only allows 1024 file
handles to be open at once. If each of the qmail-remotes has a m
From: "Steve Wolfe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2000 21:22:30 -0600
. . .
> Another question is about the Mail header. What is the header that I
should
> add into a generated email so that undelivered/bounced emails go to this
> specific email address instead? For ex
On Sun, May 07, 2000 at 08:41:11AM -0400, Bryan White wrote:
[snip]
>
> I have played with removing flush statements from qmail-queue.c. This
> dramatically increases the rate at which qmail-inject puts stuff into the
> queue. This led to very large queues (my sending process backs off when the
> I have a question about qmail regarding its mail handling capacity.
> How many remote emails can qmail send simulataneously, assuming it is run
> on a Dual-CPU PIII 500Mhz with 512Mb RAM and a SCSI hard disk? The
internet
> bandwidth is 10 Mbps.
>
> If I run 2 parallel processes that sends o
> I have a question about qmail regarding its mail handling capacity.
> How many remote emails can qmail send simulataneously, assuming it is run
> on a Dual-CPU PIII 500Mhz with 512Mb RAM and a SCSI hard disk? The
internet
> bandwidth is 10 Mbps.
A lot. : )
There is a hard-coded limit t
Dear QMail users,
I am a QMail newbie and I would like some advice on some qmail performance
issues.
I have a question about qmail regarding its mail handling capacity.
How many remote emails can qmail send simulataneously, assuming it is run
on a Dual-CPU PIII 500Mhz with 512Mb RAM and a
On Wed 1999-04-28 (14:20), Fred Lindberg wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Has anyone for fun taken a high-end machine and produced the type of
> statistics that www.lsoft.com is presenting for lsmtp
> (http://www.lsoft.com/lsmtp.html)? They are obviously geared towards
> overestimation, but it would be useful fo
Hi,
Has anyone for fun taken a high-end machine and produced the type of
statistics that www.lsoft.com is presenting for lsmtp
(http://www.lsoft.com/lsmtp.html)? They are obviously geared towards
overestimation, but it would be useful for comparison. I realize that
qmail is currently limited to a
Markus Stumpf writes:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 12:02:32AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> > really work, the mailclient should check pop mail as often as possible.
>
> PLEZ ... be careful with that.
> We have customers that have a leased line but we manage their Mailboxes (POP3).
>
On Tue, Mar 23, 1999 at 12:02:32AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote:
> really work, the mailclient should check pop mail as often as possible.
PLEZ ... be careful with that.
We have customers that have a leased line but we manage their Mailboxes (POP3).
Sometimes they receive a "really big" Ma
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: qmail Performance question
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I recently converted to qmail (from Netscape's Novonyx) using Maildir,
> > tcp-server smtp and qmail-pop3d. The client PC's a
At 12:02 am +0100 23/3/99,the wonderful Peter van Dijk wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 10:35:28PM +, Peter Gradwell wrote:
>> At 9:16 pm + 22/3/99,the wonderful Russell Nelson wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Then tell them to poll the pop3 server every zero minutes.
>>
>> you would be wise to do it
On Mon, Mar 22, 1999 at 10:35:28PM +, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> At 9:16 pm + 22/3/99,the wonderful Russell Nelson wrote:
> >
> >
> > Then tell them to poll the pop3 server every zero minutes.
>
> you would be wise to do it every 1 minute, if they are using Eudora,
> they will never see the
At 9:16 pm + 22/3/99,the wonderful Russell Nelson wrote:
>
>
> Then tell them to poll the pop3 server every zero minutes.
you would be wise to do it every 1 minute, if they are using Eudora,
they will never see their mail :(
peter.
--
peter at gradwell dot com; online @ http://www.gradwel
| There is a Netscape setting to check for mail every 15 minutes, I'll change that
| to every minute and see if that changes their perception.
Why, oh why, do popular mail readers insist on polling? Transmitting
small authenticated messages to signed-on users was a solved problem
10 years ago wi
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I recently converted to qmail (from Netscape's Novonyx) using Maildir,
> tcp-server smtp and qmail-pop3d. The client PC's are either Windows NT or 95
> using Netscape Communicator as the mail user agent (pop3). It takes
considerably
> longer for t
Asmodeus writes:
> On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > I recently converted to qmail (from Netscape's Novonyx) using Maildir,
> > tcp-server smtp and qmail-pop3d. The client PC's are either Windows NT or 95
> > using Netscape Communicator as the mail user agent (pop3). It take
On Mon, 22 Mar 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I recently converted to qmail (from Netscape's Novonyx) using Maildir,
> tcp-server smtp and qmail-pop3d. The client PC's are either Windows NT or 95
> using Netscape Communicator as the mail user agent (pop3). It takes considerably
> longer for the
Greetings,
I recently converted to qmail (from Netscape's Novonyx) using Maildir,
tcp-server smtp and qmail-pop3d. The client PC's are either Windows NT or 95
using Netscape Communicator as the mail user agent (pop3). It takes considerably
longer for the clients to "get messages" from the serve
I believe Dan said that under solaris the resolver library is statically
linked only.
On 22 Jan 1999, D. J. Bernstein wrote:
> Andrew Richards writes:
> > As someone looking at using Qmail on Solaris, what is the issue with
> > Solaris alluded to above?
>
> Solaris fritters away quite a bit of
D J Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Andrew Richards writes:
>> As someone looking at using Qmail on Solaris, what is the issue with
>> Solaris alluded to above?
> Solaris fritters away quite a bit of memory in each networking process.
> This limits the number of simultaneous processes th
Andrew Richards writes:
> As someone looking at using Qmail on Solaris, what is the issue with
> Solaris alluded to above?
Solaris fritters away quite a bit of memory in each networking process.
This limits the number of simultaneous processes that you can run.
---Dan
On Thu, Jan 21, 1999 at 12:20:18PM -, Andrew Richards wrote:
> >>BSD can handle a concurrency of 255 in one qmail-send process, though
> >>...snip...
> >Yes. Since you're not using Solaris you should be able to fit a huge
> >number of qmail-remote processes into 128MB. Make sure to compile
>
>>BSD can handle a concurrency of 255 in one qmail-send process, though
>>...snip...
>Yes. Since you're not using Solaris you should be able to fit a huge
>number of qmail-remote processes into 128MB. Make sure to compile
>everything statically.
>---Dan
Hi,
As someone looking at using Qmail on
63 matches
Mail list logo
