Florin, it has been pointed out many, many times that Red Hat ENTERPRISE Linux is about being stable. Red Hat invests a lot of resources to ensure API and ABI compatibility in RHEL for the life of that release.
With respect, if RHEL isn't moving as fast as you need, maybe Fedora would better suite your needs. CC On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Florin Andrei <[email protected]> wrote: > On 06/18/2010 03:34 PM, Sam Sharpe wrote: >> >> No disrespect (I work for a hosting company), but can you think of >> many legitimate cases where you want to deliver that many messages to > > Ever done business online, with upcoming events you need to inform all your > customers about? > >> Yahoo users that fast? > > "That fast"? I could only send less than 0.1 messages / sec on average to > Yahoo before the upgrade. My 36k modem from the '90s could do better. > > The fact is, they have a very primitive spam throttling strategy (SAPI - the > scarcely available pinhole intake), which takes legitimate email down with > it as perpetual collateral damage. Adding insult to injury, it's not just > slower, it's much less efficient at killing spam than whatever it is that > Gmail does. > > The MTAs have evolved to adapt to this reality, but you need to stay > up-to-date with your software to take advantage of that. That the software > is "stable" and "tested" means nothing to me when I have to drop the email > queue with 50% of @yahoo.com still unsent because it's too late. > >>> Fun fact: Postfix-2.3.3 has been released in August 2006. Think about >>> that. >> >> Excellent. RHEL5 was released in March 2007, so that version of >> postfix was nice, stable, tested, mature software at the point of >> release of RHEL5. Exactly how I like it thanks... > > Don't get me wrong - it was fine at the time. But the Internet is, you know, > a quickly changing environment. Fast forward 4 years, and running the same > software just doesn't do it anymore. > >> If this is an issue for you, perhaps you need to have a discussion >> with your TAM, open a support case or maybe a bugzilla regarding this, >> so that Red Hat can decide whether back-porting the changes from 2.7.0 >> which fix this issue into the stable codebase is a feasible option. > > Much easier to just "rpm -U" the 2.7 package. Much quicker too - closer to > the speed the real world is changing, anyway. > > I have no complaints related to the database servers, deeply buried into the > datacenter - 4yr old software is perfectly fine there. But the > Internet-facing machines, those are a very different story. > > -- > Florin Andrei > http://florin.myip.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > -- RHCE#805007969328369 _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
