El jue, 04-09-2003 a las 07:58, Eric Sproul escribi�: > We chose OpenLDAP. At the time (1999), Qmail > did not have LDAP support (correct me if I'm wrong). Sendmail did. > Even if Qmail did have LDAP support then, Sendmail's source was *much* > easier to dig through for the performance tuning we did.
It does support LDAP now, and yes. You are right about the disk-io tradeoff. But, where reliability and lossless environments are needed, the way qmail does things ensure you NEVER loose mail, even if its all over a SAN or NFS setup. This is because it will return OK delivered or OK queued until it confirms it has been written. Its like postgresql. You can have it allways fsync (all writes, deletes inserts trigger a commit before they return OK), and it will slow down, need big iron. Or you can turn fsync off and live with the posibility of you loosing some data in a power outage. Mail is almost never a MUST HAVE thing though, i think for most its valid to just live with the posibility of loosing an email in the queue, or to have it half written to it. Not for me though, i like the secure,reliable thing and i did get some good big iron (two dell 2650 in a drbd cluster+heartbeat, 2 gigs ram). Also, i like the way qmail is done to be managable. Even then, i am trying to move to postfix as fast as i can. Not because of religion (i am religious too though, just really a sinner), but because it has a healthy community, its very very well supported in debian, it has very little of sendmail nonsense (i was reading the 7th edition unix redbook...damn, even back then, people already hated it), and its GPL (-a nice cherry on top that is, master yoda said.). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
