Sean Reifschneider wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 04:20:19PM +0000, Greg Cope wrote:
> >Has anyone any empirical evidence for the speed increases I may expect
> >(as opposed to a fast EIDI (ATA 66, 8.5ms seek) or SCSI system (eg 10k,
> >5.3 ms seek 25mb/s) ?
>
> 10ns is much faster than 5.3ms... It works, I've done it, it's reasonably
> fast, but you still have to worry about things like swamping the todo
> and on top of that you may have to worry about filling up your queue
> disc. You can get QMail into a situation where it's completely wedged
> until you manually remove some files from the ram disc to give it enough
> space to continue delivering mail.
Thanks for that:
Queue disk filling is an issue - I was thinking of a 256 meg ram disk -
and small jobs - i.e try to leave a lot of room - i.e. if the av message
size is 10 K, not inject more than 25000 messages at once - although
this leaves little headroom.
Ok given that I can:
control job size
control job inject fequency (by looking at the queue size / space left)
control injection speed (avoid / stop todo swaping)
Would this still be a good idea ? As a 256 meg dim is 108 UK pounds
sterling - or less than a SCSI card ...
Greg
>
> Sean
> --
> I never thought I'd live in a country where physical violence would be used
> to disenfranchise voters. Have you heard about Bush supporters rioting?
> Sean Reifschneider, Inimitably Superfluous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> tummy.com - Linux Consulting since 1995. Qmail, KRUD, Firewalls, Python
