On Fri, Jan 21, 2000 at 06:57:55AM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2000 21:04:11 -0800 , Mark Delany writes:
> > Are these inbound or outbound transactions. Inbound and the concommitant
> > local delivery is usually a lot harder on a system than outbound.
>
> Another issue is multiple deliveries -- if you are
> doing header rewriting in the standard, stock qmail
> way, you are doing two deliveries per message. To
> say this kills performance is an understatement.
Header rewriting in the stock qmail? Two deliveries per message?
I don't see this in any "stock" qmail or are you assuming
that delivery goes thru an ~alias structure of some sort first?
> > You will need to have separate queues that are load-balanced in
> > some way. There are also NVRAM disks to consider as potential
> > queue disks with awesome performance, but I've not seen those
> > used on qmail.
>
> Solid-state disks are prohibitively expensive -- a
> decent sized one costs about as much as a decent
> sized house[1]. In other words, if you have enough
> money for an SSD, there are generally better things
> you can do with it, like run multiple servers, and
> use round-robin MXing to do load-balancing and
> failover.
It very much depends on where your mail storage is as to what
strategies you can deploy in this regard.
Has anyone on this list had the luxury of running a full/large load
on a variety of different scenarios in use?
What is clear from the variety of experiences expressed on this list
is that a good understanding of where your loads are, allows a competent
qmail admin to devise a variety of workable solutions.
Has anyone actually done a cost-benefit on SSD vs
multiple systems?
Mark.
