Andreas Aardal Hanssen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ...I also removed some unnessecary fsync()s as they were
> slowing down everything very much...
Be careful; if you mean that you've removed fsync()s from Dan's code,
then you have definitely thrown away reliability in order to gain
throughput. In your application, is it acceptable for emails to be
silently lost under a power failure? Where did you get the idea that
they were "unneccesary"?
BTW you could get the same result--indeed, better results--without
tampering with Dan's code, if you simply add memory and mount a
ramdisk on /var/qmail/queue.
If that revolts you, then you might want to put the fsync()s back.
> ..IO is obviously the problem here, not how-to-interpret-that
> damn-uptime-load...
Correct. But Dan is not stupid; when he accepted the I/O cost, it was
to gain a benefit. Before you refuse the cost, you should be sure you
know what the benefit was--and that it doesn't outweigh the cost.
Len.
--
This has nothing to do with qmail or with trademarks. Someone could
distribute patches for sendmail that relabel it as ``Dan Bernstein's
mailer---yell at [EMAIL PROTECTED] when your system is broken into.''
-- Dan Bernstein, author of qmail
