On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +, nixlists wrote:
What are you running? Exchange??
Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save
from most, but not all lost messages after a crash.
Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer
the
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:20PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us
wrote:
You are positively
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 08:27:51AM -0500, Kenneth R Westerback wrote:
| Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it.
|
| Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will
| work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for
| negligable
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it.
Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will
work. In 'most' cases you will be suffering huge performance loses for
blah blah blah
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:04:13PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it.
Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 04:04:13PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Kenneth R Westerback
kwesterb...@rogers.com wrote:
Exchange, Groupwise, Lotus, various Unix setups. You name it.
Day to day, no errors, no hardware going flakey, then anything will
work. In 'most'
On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 01:01:53 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts
list-...@designtools.org wrote:
DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great
programmer, DJB wants his code to be as correct as possible
within the very
On Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 11:50 PM, J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org wrote:
My anonymous friend, you need to accept *PEOPLE* write software. Those
little things like experience, skills, and even personality are present
in the output of programmers.
Of course, but this was about his
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:04:15PM -0800, Ben Calvert wrote:
On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:06 PM, nixlists wrote:
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either
controller or drives
really? how sure of this are
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
provided that the controller is configured not to write-back cache,
the drives are configured not to write-back cache, the FS is
mounted 'sync'. No softupdates. Let's not divert this to something
tangential and
On a completely unrelated note, I'm glad I came up with rules to redirect
all smtpd related mails to my phone ... smart idea ... :-)
Gilles
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 11:20:24AM -0800, J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
provided that
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
There is no certainty.
There is only belief.
Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see the
problem as arising from a statement made by a
Just to remind:
rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists,
it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that is,
both directories or both non-directories), and must reside on the same
file system.
rename() guarantees that if
What are you running? Exchange??
Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save
from most, but not all lost messages after a crash.
Anyway, before we divert to a some other topic, someone please answer
the question for the simplest case - we've already decided that every
You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over
again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:47:14PM +, nixlists wrote:
What are you running? Exchange??
Redundancy is nice, but email back-ups are futile. Backups might save
wc -l the code and tell me again how that makes you feel.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:48:59PM +, nixlists wrote:
Just to remind:
rename() causes the link named from to be renamed as to. If to exists,
it is first removed. Both from and to must be of the same type (that is,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over
again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair.
You are still refusing to give a direct answer to a direct question.
How's that not
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over
again. Take your toy mail implementation and enjoy your hair.
You are still refusing to
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us
wrote:
You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all over
again. Take
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:33:20PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
| On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Bret S. Lambert bret.lamb...@gmail.com
| wrote:
| On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
| On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us
| wrote:
| You are
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net wrote:
Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see
the
problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician (DJB) about
the
infallibility of his software when used with certain filesystems.
hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that
the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he uses
gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function of
helping me compose interview questions to weed out undesirable job
Nobody debated his ability to write code.
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 07:30:47PM -0500, Brad Tilley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net wrote:
Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see
the
problem as arising from a statement
I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one
more time.
You can't trust one million lines of code between your application and
the physical hardware to all be perfect and guarantee you anything more
than best effort. That includes your hyperbole.
Now you draw your
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net
wrote:
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is no certainty.
There is only belief.
Tracing this discussion back
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:47 PM, frantisek holop wrote:
hmm, on Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:32:10PM -0800, Ben Calvert said that
the unnamed individual (with such great faith in his mail system that he
uses
gmail to correspond with us) is actually performing the valuable function
of
helping me
On Jan 25, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Brad Tilley wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32 -0800, Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net
wrote:
Tracing this discussion back to it's origins earlier this month, I see
the
problem as arising from a statement made by a Mathematician (DJB) about
the
infallibility of
On Jan 25, 2010, at 6:11 PM, J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:32:10 -0800 Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net
wrote:
On Jan 25, 2010, at 11:20 AM, J.C. Roberts wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 23:34:08 -0500 nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is no certainty.
There is only
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one
more time.
No, you didn't, see below.
This thread started here:
http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=126435421227560w=2
After I replied to that message
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 22:33:20 nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 04:35:48PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Marco Peereboom
sl...@peereboom.us
wrote:
You are positively ignorant. No need to regurgitate this all
over
again. Take your toy mail
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 9:11 PM, J.C. Roberts list-...@designtools.org wrote:
DJB does great work and thinks about his code. Like every great
programmer, DJB wants his code to be as correct as possible within the
very well known bounding limitations (hardware, compilers, operating
systems, file
On Jan 25, 2010, at 8:57 PM, nixlists wrote:
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 8:26 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us
wrote:
I gave you the answer several times but I'll humor you and do it one
more time.
No, you didn't, see below.
yes, he did.
you're confusing i didn't hear what i wanted to
looming. I am trying to understand the technical issues, not
You mean you're not just arguing because you have a burning need
to be right on the intertruck due to personal issues? Color me
surprised.
will you believe me if i restate your question and his answer?
question:
if i turn off the cache on the controller and the disk what is keeping rename
from ensuring that the file is never lost
answer:
you can't actually know that the cache is shut off on the disk, so the
question is moot.
In message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=126356588306613w=1,
Marco Peereboom slash () peereboom ! us wrote
You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does
what it does and claiming that a piece of software is crash proof is
naive at best.
Hmm. Our rename(2) man page
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg
jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote:
In message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=126356588306613w=1,
Marco Peereboom slash () peereboom ! us wrote
You can do everything right all day long in software but hardware does
what it does and claiming
When configured as documented - no controller write-back cache (maybe
with a battery back-up, but batteries fail too), no drive write-back
cache, no async mounts, no known buggy stuff.
Which hardware??? Could someone at least point out one example of such
hardware?
I, and, I am sure many
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg
jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote:
In message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=126356588306613w=1,
Marco Peereboom slash () peereboom ! us wrote
You can do everything right all day
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:48 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 07:22:08PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Jonathan Thornburg
jth...@astro.indiana.edu wrote:
In message http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-miscm=126356588306613w=1,
Marco
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either
controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say
again that batteries fail too). You seem to be taking what I wrote out
of context, or you
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either
controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say
again that
nixlists wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either
controller or drives (well, maybe with a battery back-up, but I'll say
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Nick Holland
n...@holland-consulting.net wrote:
nixlists wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us
wrote:
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23:46PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either
controller or drives (well,
On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 10:23 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's all roll-over and die - we might die any second anyway because
nothing is guaranteed, so why stay alive? Are thousands of people
running mail servers losing messages in crashes all the time, and are
unaware of it?
On Jan 24, 2010, at 5:06 PM, nixlists wrote:
I specifically wrote above When configured as documented. No admin
will run a mail server with write-back cache enabled on either
controller or drives
really? how sure of this are you?
let's poll the population of misc@
how many administrators
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:30 AM, Tomas Bodzar tomas.bod...@gmail.com wrote:
qmail tries to be very careful that a message is on the disk.
Does OpenSMTPD do this? The answer could be yes or no. How is that
nonsensical?
Thanks!
Only very big fool can write e-mail SW which don't try to
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:50:14PM +0100, Jean-Francois wrote:
Hi All,
Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it shall
be fully integrated into OpenBSD ?
Thanks.
actual state ?
work in progress, do not use in production, you will lose your job.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
...
More like does OpenBSD have a similar reliability feature that qmail
does - pertaining to writing messages into the queue?
...
No offense, but I don't think the
I don't think that someone tries to stop you with tests of smtpd like
'# smtpctl show queue' or '# ls -l /var/spool/smtpd/queue'
with/without softupdates and check outputs and e-mails in queue. Eg. I
wasn't sure if it's safe to remove messages from queue in case that my
smtpd is set onfly for
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko
denis.doroshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/10, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without
softupdates? What about with
On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 09:41:46 +0100
Gilles Chehade gil...@openbsd.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:50:14PM +0100, Jean-Francois wrote:
Hi All,
Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and
when it shall be fully integrated into OpenBSD ?
Thanks.
actual
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010 09:41:46, Gilles Chehade a icrit :
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:50:14PM +0100, Jean-Francois wrote:
Hi All,
Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and
when it
shall be fully integrated into OpenBSD ?
Thanks.
actual state ?
work
I am familiar with DJB's writings on queue structure and others.
Fundamentally, OpenSMTPD makes use of file system atomic operations
similarly to qmail in order to achieve the same goal, the difference
lies in directory hierarchy organization which that is of secondary
importance.
But I believe
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:55:30AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko
denis.doroshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/10, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it have the same reliability
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:22:56AM -0600, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:55:30AM +0100, Gilles Chehade wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko
denis.doroshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/10,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:36 AM, Philip Guenther guent...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:05 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
...
More like does OpenBSD have a similar reliability feature that qmail
does - pertaining
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Gilles Chehade gil...@openbsd.org
wrote: qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is
crashproof on
the BSD FFS and most of its variants.
smtp ensures reliability by working on a temporary queue during writes,
then commiting messages (all of them,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
smtp ensures reliability by working on a temporary queue during writes,
then commiting messages (all of them, including bounces) to the real
queue using an atomic rename. after a successful rename, smtpd tells
the
On 16/01/2010, at 11:27 AM, nixlists wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Gilles Chehade gil...@openbsd.org
wrote: qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is
crashproof on
the BSD FFS and most of its variants.
smtp ensures reliability by working on a temporary queue during
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 6:12 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
qmail's author says Queue reliability demands that single-byte writes
be atomic. This is true for a fixed-block filesystem such as UFS, and
for a logging
filesystem such as LFS.
I hope that doesn't mean what I interpret it
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote:
So what does it mean for a single byte write to be atomic?
That some bits in a byte won't be updated without other bits being
updated as well.
I said it before if software people weren't so dangeorous they'd be
adorable. I haven't read his bs and couldn't me arsed to; your sneak
preview tells me everything I have to know about him. But don't
believe me to read the block sorting algorithm. Or the SCSI spec that
asserts that ios
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Matthew Dempsky matt...@dempsky.org wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote:
So what does it mean for a single byte write to be atomic?
That some bits in a byte won't be updated without other bits being
updated as well.
Hi All,
Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it shall
be fully integrated into OpenBSD ?
Thanks.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:50 PM, Jean-Francois jfsimon1...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
Could you please inform about the actual state of OpenSMTPd and when it
shall
be fully integrated into OpenBSD ?
Thanks.
You can keep an eye on its development by tracking commits on the CVS
repository.
I
Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without
softupdates? What about with softupdates?
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html
If you use softupdates you assume certain risks. What the fruit does it
have to do with smtpd?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 01:41:25PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without
softupdates? What about with softupdates?
On 1/14/10, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without
softupdates? What about with softupdates?
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html
the very link you just provided contains the following sentence:
Do not use async or
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko
denis.doroshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/10, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without
softupdates? What about with softupdates?
http://cr.yp.to/qmail/faq/reliability.html
the
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does?
Reliaibility-wise?
qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on
the BSD FFS and most of its variants.
Since the point of a mail
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:26 PM, Denis Doroshenko
denis.doroshe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/14/10, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it have the same reliability features as qmail on an FS without
softupdates? What about with
On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does?
Reliaibility-wise?
qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof on
the BSD FFS and most of
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net wrote:
On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does?
Reliaibility-wise?
qmail's queue,
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 06:42:07PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 6:24 PM, Ben Calvert b...@flyingwalrus.net wrote:
On Jan 14, 2010, at 3:11 PM, Marco Peereboom wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:09:03PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does?
Reliaibility-wise?
qmail's queue, except for bounce message contents, is crashproof
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, forget I mentioned softupdates. Does it do what qmail does?
Reliaibility-wise?
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM, Marco Peereboom sl...@peereboom.us wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 07:55:37PM -0500, nixlists wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Ted Unangst ted.unan...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:09 PM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry, forget I
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:05 AM, nixlists nixmli...@gmail.com wrote:
No offense, but I don't think the question was understood. qmail's
qmail-queue does interesting, and a bit complicated things to deal
with crashes while a message is being queued. See here:
qmail tries to be very careful that a message is on the disk.
Does OpenSMTPD do this? The answer could be yes or no. How is that
nonsensical?
Thanks!
Only very big fool can write e-mail SW which don't try to have
messages on the disk ;-)
80 matches
Mail list logo
