Unleash the daemon!
;)
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Delany [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2001 2:12 PM
To: Qmail List
Subject: Re: High Availability, High Volume and NFS
I don't want to start an OS war, but if you want to use NFS on an
Intel box, I strongly suggest one of the BSDs. I was in a situation
where I had to use Linux NFS servers - that was until they failed
miserabled. They were replaced with FreeBSD and the problems went
away.
Regards.
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 01:40:13PM -0500, Duane Schaub allegedly wrote:
>
> I want to set up multiple qmail machines to access an NFS backend. We
have
> about 10,000 users (running maildir) and an average of 5 emails/user/dat
and
> av. 10K in size. On average, there are 6 simultaneous pop sessions with
> approx. 200 new sessions/min.
>
> We have tried a Redhat6.1 backend on the NFS with Redhat 6.1 NFS clients.
> The result was that the qmail machines were BARELY able to keep up. If
> there were any pauses on the NFS server, the POP sessions would build to
> 50-60 very quickly with qmail crashing at about 300 sessions. Once qmail
> exceeded about 70 sessions, it was beyond the point of return and would
not
> recover.
>
> The NFS server was nothing special (P350/IDE 256Mb RAM). We also tried a
> Dell 2300 (Dual 400/RAID5) NT server running Intergraph NFS.... But the
> performance was abysmal! Performing an ls in a user/new directory took 21
> seconds for a response.
>
> I think NFS would work, but I don't really want a Netapp F5 ($50,000).
What
> NFS experiences are out there?
>
> If you wish - respond privately [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Duane.
>
>
> ====================================================
> President, | Terra World, Inc.
> Terra World, Inc. | 200 ARCO Place, Suite 252
> (888)332-1616 | Independence, KS 67301
> (620)332-1616 | When your work counts, Use
> www.terraworld.net | T E R R A W O R L D
> ====================================================
>
>
