>That is an interesting point actually, and one of the things I was
>getting to -
>you reckon that seperating SQL and its effective clients would what, speed
>things up, reduce the resource overhead, all of the above? Not
>disputing this -
>but would like more evidence.
Sorry, this is self-evident. vbg
>Exactly! And hence the point of this discussion - if it can't go on the
>webserver, it has to go on the iMS server as the only other possible
>alternative
>in a two server scenario.
yes, that too bad. start agitating for a 3rd box soon. I won't guess
which your two boxes will poop out first. A dedicated POST outbound
relay hub is dead simple (I'm assuming iMS can relay all outbound to
a an ip address or hostname) and its just plumbing.
Adding a second web mail box would need a 2nd URL, or do you plan to
use some kind of application level load balancer in from the 2 or
more web mail boxes?
> > I said iMS mail queue was 50/50 write/read and RAID10 would be
> > best. Won't your SQL be 10/90 write/read?
>
>I doubt it. Every incoming message as well as writing a file to the mail
>directory also writes an entry to the SQL Server "mail" table.
omygod, you're storing the mailboxes in SQL tables? How you you
handle 5 megabyte attachements?
>I would welcome other comments - but I don't think 10/90 is correct
no, it's not for mailbox i/o. 50/50 is more like it. 10/90 is
traditional record-oriented data processing, not mailbox storage.
>is notwithstanding the_much_better write capability of RAID 10. To me RAID 10
>is a "must have".
I will have to go study up on RAID10.
Len
========================================================================
This list server is Powered by iMS
'The Swiss Army Knife of Mail Servers'
--------------------------------------
To leave this list please complete the form at
http://www.CoolFusion.com/iMS.htm
List archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/infusion-email%40eoscape.com/
========================================================================
