Re: Upgrading our mail server
Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. -- Gerard ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading our mail server
* On 14/09/06 16:51 +0200, Frank Bonnet wrote: | Hello | | Our mailhub is actually a HP DL360 with one processor (Xeon 2.8 ghz) | with 2 Gb RAM and 120 Gb disks, it is 3 years old. | | It runs Postfix + imap + imaps + pop3 + pop3s + squirrelmail + vexira | antivirus + postgrey | and some small auxiliary services. | | We have approx 2500 users / mailboxes and the machine is often really loaded | | So I decided it is time to purchase a new server and I need some feedback | from | admins that could help me to choose a new hardware system that could runs | like | a charm with FreeBSD 6.1 ? | | I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Your server is good enough to handle even 10k users. You just need to identify what is causing the overload. Adding one processor and 2GB extra RAM should be enough, I think. If what you want is to get a new server thinking it will be fast just because of the CPU and RAM, then your thinking is ill-advised. I have an HP ML350 with one 2.4GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 2x146GB SCSI HDD and it runs Exim, courier-imap (pop3/imap), squirrelmail, spamassassin, ClamAv, MySQL with 8k individual mail accounts on it. The only thing I feel like updating on it is to double the CPU and double the RAM and I am sure to run it for longer. Do you see my line of thinking? -Wash http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php -- +==+ |\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington[EMAIL PROTECTED] Zzz /,`.-'`'-. ;-;;,_ | Wananchi Online Ltd. www.wananchi.com |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'| Tel: +254 20 313985-9 +254 20 313922 '---''(_/--' `-'\_) | GSM: +254 722 743223 +254 733 744121 +==+ Boy, life takes a long time to live -- Steven Wright ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading our mail server
Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it -- Cordialement Frank Bonnet ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
--- Bill Moran [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! I have see benchmarks on the PC-Mag site or maybe it was PC-World that would seem to indicate that all things being equal, SATA would outperform SCSI. I have a few friends using SATA and RAID without any problems. My next server, hopefully by years end, will use that sort of configuration. Sorry, but that is about all I can tell you. -- White Hat [EMAIL PROTECTED] __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading our mail server
Frank Bonnet wrote: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it I have yet to have a SATA drive last more than 10 months handling a busy mail queue. I have SCSI drives that are four years old and still going strong. SATA, IMHO, is a nice fast drive for gamers. You can go to Frys and get a speedy drive for little money. I do not trust them for mission critical data. As they gain market share that may change. For now I've changed far too many, I have a pop toaster down currently awaiting it's second SATA drive in 16 months. (Professional NOC, Temp, vibration, power all conditioned, this was a Seagate drive). Just my experience, not looking for agreement or argument. DAve -- Three years now I've asked Google why they don't have a logo change for Memorial Day. Why do they choose to do logos for other non-international holidays, but nothing for Veterans? Maybe they forgot who made that choice possible. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology. -Derek At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
On Sep 14, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Derek Ragona wrote: SATA is still quite limited. To go beyond those limits use SAS, but SAS costs even more than SCSI and is brand new technology. Get a 12 or 16 or 24 port Areca card and have a few hot spares and you will see SATA fly for less money than SCSI with higher storage and as high or higher reliability (RAID 6 plus hot spares)... I used to be SCSI only but these new cards and drives offer a lot more for the money and you can make up for reliability by sheer mass and raid 6 and hot spares :-) Chad -Derek At 10:46 AM 9/14/2006, Bill Moran wrote: In response to Frank Bonnet [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Gerard Seibert wrote: Frank Bonnet wrote: [...] I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Why the insistence on SCSI? Is there any reason that SATA or RAID with SATA is not acceptable? Just curious. Because I want it Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! -- Bill Moran Collaborative Fusion Inc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-questions- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading our mail server
On 9/14/2006 10:32 AM, Odhiambo Washington wrote: * On 14/09/06 16:51 +0200, Frank Bonnet wrote: | Hello | | Our mailhub is actually a HP DL360 with one processor (Xeon 2.8 ghz) | with 2 Gb RAM and 120 Gb disks, it is 3 years old. | | It runs Postfix + imap + imaps + pop3 + pop3s + squirrelmail + vexira | antivirus + postgrey | and some small auxiliary services. | | We have approx 2500 users / mailboxes and the machine is often really loaded | | So I decided it is time to purchase a new server and I need some feedback | from | admins that could help me to choose a new hardware system that could runs | like | a charm with FreeBSD 6.1 ? | | I need SCSI Disks of course , budget is around 10K$ Your server is good enough to handle even 10k users. You just need to identify what is causing the overload. Adding one processor and 2GB extra RAM should be enough, I think. If what you want is to get a new server thinking it will be fast just because of the CPU and RAM, then your thinking is ill-advised. I have an HP ML350 with one 2.4GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 2x146GB SCSI HDD and it runs Exim, courier-imap (pop3/imap), squirrelmail, spamassassin, ClamAv, MySQL with 8k individual mail accounts on it. The only thing I feel like updating on it is to double the CPU and double the RAM and I am sure to run it for longer. Do you see my line of thinking? -Wash Are any of the major server brands more FreeBSD friendly than others? I'm looking to purchase a server for some web apps. Our current config is running on a 6 year old Dell PowerEdge machine with SCSI RAID 5, 1 Ghz processor, 32 gig total disk capacity, and a gig of RAM. Upgrading this machine would cost more than it's worth. Boss insists on a name brand server (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc). Budget is in the $2K range. I'd rather stay away from SATA at this point due to the incredible amount of difficulty I experienced putting together a MythTV box earlier this year, and go with SCSI. If no one has specific recommendations, are there any specifics that are definite show stoppers that I should pay attention to when reviewing specs? Best regards, Greg Groth ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Upgrading our mail server
--On Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:45:49 -0500 Greg Groth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are any of the major server brands more FreeBSD friendly than others? I'm looking to purchase a server for some web apps. Our current config is running on a 6 year old Dell PowerEdge machine with SCSI RAID 5, 1 Ghz processor, 32 gig total disk capacity, and a gig of RAM. Upgrading this machine would cost more than it's worth. Boss insists on a name brand server (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc). Budget is in the $2K range. I'd rather stay away from SATA at this point due to the incredible amount of difficulty I experienced putting together a MythTV box earlier this year, and go with SCSI. If no one has specific recommendations, are there any specifics that are definite show stoppers that I should pay attention to when reviewing specs? I just bought a Dell 1950 rack mount with two 73GB SAS drives (3.5 inch, 15K RPM), PERC 5/i integrated card, RAID 1, DRAC, 3.2GB processor, 2GB RAM, etc. It was $2800+ including shipping. I *think* you can get down to the $2000 range by downgrading the processor and memory and getting smaller drives, but it's not going to be easy. (I'll be installing FreeBSD 6.1 RELEASE on it tonight.) Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/
Re: Upgrading our mail server
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 11:56:24AM -0500, Paul Schmehl wrote: --On Thursday, September 14, 2006 11:45:49 -0500 Greg Groth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are any of the major server brands more FreeBSD friendly than others? I'm looking to purchase a server for some web apps. Our current config is running on a 6 year old Dell PowerEdge machine with SCSI RAID 5, 1 Ghz processor, 32 gig total disk capacity, and a gig of RAM. Upgrading this machine would cost more than it's worth. Boss insists on a name brand server (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc). Budget is in the $2K range. I'd rather stay away from SATA at this point due to the incredible amount of difficulty I experienced putting together a MythTV box earlier this year, and go with SCSI. If no one has specific recommendations, are there any specifics that are definite show stoppers that I should pay attention to when reviewing specs? There is a company calling itself FreeBSD systems that claims to make servers especially for BSD Unix. I don't know about the price points. I think they are kind of hard core heavy duty servers. Their web site is: http://www.freebsdsystems.com/ I seem to remember once seeing another site that hyped their servers as especially for BSD, but this is the only one I have an address for. The Dell machine mentioned below doesn't sound bad either if all the devices are happy with FreeBSD. jerry I just bought a Dell 1950 rack mount with two 73GB SAS drives (3.5 inch, 15K RPM), PERC 5/i integrated card, RAID 1, DRAC, 3.2GB processor, 2GB RAM, etc. It was $2800+ including shipping. I *think* you can get down to the $2000 range by downgrading the processor and memory and getting smaller drives, but it's not going to be easy. (I'll be installing FreeBSD 6.1 RELEASE on it tonight.) Paul Schmehl ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Adjunct Information Security Officer The University of Texas at Dallas http://www.utdallas.edu/ir/security/ ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SCSI vs. SATA (was Re: Upgrading our mail server)
Bill Moran wrote: Has anyone every verified whether or not SATA has the problems that plagued ATA? Such as crappy quality and lying caches? Personally, I still demand SCSI on production servers because it still seems as if: a) The performance is still better b) The reliability is still better But I haven't taken a comprehensive look at the SATA offerings. It also seems as if SATA is more limiting. Most SCSI cards can support 16 devices, does SATA have similar offerings? I know it's not common, but if you need that many spindles, you need them! I've used 15-drive SATA Promise arrays with some success. They come in both Fibre Channel and SCSI varieties, and are about $10k with 400GB SATA drives. I've run them up to ~170MB/s with RAID-5, which is more than enough for me. You get the best of both the SATA and SCSI/FC worlds. -- -- Skylar Thompson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) -- http://www.cs.earlham.edu/~skylar/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Upgrading our mail server
| Our mailhub is actually a HP DL360 with one processor (Xeon 2.8 ghz) | with 2 Gb RAM and 120 Gb disks, it is 3 years old. | It runs Postfix + imap + imaps + pop3 + pop3s + squirrelmail + vexira | antivirus + postgrey | and some small auxiliary services. Your server is good enough to handle even 10k users. You just need to identify what is causing the overload. Adding one processor and 2GB extra RAM should be enough, I think. Even when the hardware is enough, I enjoy a new machine when it comes to build a mail server: it is such a critical machine (users will not understand that their mailbox could be out of reach for 5 minutes) with enough different components, each having specificities on the config (not the sort you power one and you are done) I don't feel at ease doing too much modif on a production email server. Now at 10K$ you have plenty of money, I believe you could afford 2 machines for hi availability. Olivier ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
