Thanks eric, the model looks good,
I will look for a how to.
On 12/1/2011 10:44 AM, Eric Shubert wrote:
I don't personally manage any really large hosts (I have worked on a
few), but I expect that Délsio is correct.
As the server gets 'busy' (tens of concurrent smtp sessions), a little
tuning may be required, regarding the number of spamd processes going.
Scanning is what taxes the CPU. With spamdyke the number of messages
that are actually scanned is on the order of 10% or less of the total
messages that hit the server, so this isn't as much of a concern as it
used to be. Spamdyke reduces the load on QMT hosts *dramatically*. I
wouldn't run a mail server without it. Unfortunately, but lucky for
us, it's only available with qmail.
On the client side (MUA) of things, the numbers depend on pop3 vs imap
users, and their connection patterns. As the number of imap users
grows (and it will, as imap is generally displacing pop3), disk space
usage obviously grows.
QMT does scale nicely. Various "pieces" can be offloaded to separate
hosts as the load begins to affect performance. At this point, an
evaluation needs to be made in order to split things up in a way that
achieves a good balance. Bill Shupp has a nice model here:
http://www.shupp.org/maps/ispcluster.html
Personally, I do run webmail (squirrelmail-toaster) on a separate
host. I think that's a good place to start.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qmailtoaster is sponsored by Vickers Consulting Group
(www.vickersconsulting.com)
Vickers Consulting Group offers Qmailtoaster support and installations.
If you need professional help with your setup, contact them today!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please visit qmailtoaster.com for the latest news, updates, and packages.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
