Re: qmail 1.04
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 05:06:27PM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:29:28PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-) We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with our qmail server. This is due to large smtproutes and rcpthosts files and some I/O bottleneck on the disk they're located. Mistake 1) A cdb wouldn't help with this problem, as its usually even slightly larger Mistake 2) virtualdomains is only read once and kept im memory. Making a cdb out of virtualdomains wouldn't help with the bottleneck ;-) Right. But you're assuming that qmail-send would read the whole of virtualdomains in at startup when it's a cdb file. I would imagine a more sensible strategy would be to read the relevant entry per email - as is done with the other cdb files. Then the discussion is - reading it at HUP *once* and doing in-memory scans versus - a cdb lookup for every delivery. I can tell you now that reading it once will only in very rare conditions give worse performance. True enough, but only virtualdomains has the opportunity to be read just once. smtproutes and rcpthosts (and badmailfrom especially) are read on each invocation of qmail-smtpd. One problem with the current setup is that control.c issues 64 bytes reads. I changed that on one system that had very large smtp control files to do larger reads and it made a significant impact. It also seems that Dan thinks at least some smtp control files are suited to this setup: witness morercpthosts. Regards.
Re: qmail 1.04
On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Peter van Dijk wrote: On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just like morercpthosts. That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of only happening at SIGHUP? There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb. Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one. -- Nagy Balazs, LSC http://www.lsc.hu/
Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote: [snip] It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just like morercpthosts. That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of only happening at SIGHUP? There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb. Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one. How would having virtualdomains being a cdb help you manage better? Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me 'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
Re: qmail 1.04
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:55:51AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote: [snip] It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just like morercpthosts. That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of only happening at SIGHUP? There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb. Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one. How would having virtualdomains being a cdb help you manage better? By saving on the HUP to qmail-send? Regards.
Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 06:02:44PM -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 02:55:51AM +0100, Peter van Dijk wrote: On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:03:06PM +0100, Balazs Nagy wrote: [snip] It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just like morercpthosts. That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of only happening at SIGHUP? There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb. Heh. I have 75 domains managed and the virtualhost file contains about the same number of lines. It's not a performance issue but a management one. How would having virtualdomains being a cdb help you manage better? By saving on the HUP to qmail-send? As I'd started this (sub-)thead ;-) I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-) We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with our qmail server. This is due to large smtproutes and rcpthosts files and some I/O bottleneck on the disk they're located. Mistake 1) A cdb wouldn't help with this problem, as its usually even slightly larger Mistake 2) virtualdomains is only read once and kept im memory. Making a cdb out of virtualdomains wouldn't help with the bottleneck ;-) Working around the need for a kill -HUP to reread virtualdomains would (for performance reasons) imply to have a mechanism to notice changes to the cdb (timestamp on file e.g.) and only refresh when changed. This however could also be done with a "plain" virtualdomains file, except one would save the costs of hashing the file. What also should be taken into consideration is constantly stat()ing the virtualdomains file/cdb vs an occasional reload due to a kill -HUP. \Maex P.S. We'll hopefully be solving the I/O problem soon by migrating the qmail server on a RAID 5 array ;-) -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Re: qmail 1.04
I made two mistakes, when I wrote that I want to have a cdb ;-) We're currently experiencing some temporary performance problems with our qmail server. This is due to large smtproutes and rcpthosts files and some I/O bottleneck on the disk they're located. Mistake 1) A cdb wouldn't help with this problem, as its usually even slightly larger Mistake 2) virtualdomains is only read once and kept im memory. Making a cdb out of virtualdomains wouldn't help with the bottleneck ;-) Right. But you're assuming that qmail-send would read the whole of virtualdomains in at startup when it's a cdb file. I would imagine a more sensible strategy would be to read the relevant entry per email - as is done with the other cdb files. Regards.
Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:36:08PM -0800, Ben Beuchler wrote: What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'? It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just like morercpthosts. Maybe we could make some inquiry of the patches people use and get some numbers to convince djb to officially add those patches? (this list is probably NOT a good place for collecting the data ;-) \Maex -- SpaceNet GmbH | http://www.Space.Net/ | Stress is when you wake Research Development| mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | up screaming and you Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 | Tel: +49 (89) 32356-0| realize you haven't D-80807 Muenchen | Fax: +49 (89) 32356-299 | fallen asleep yet.
Re: qmail 1.04
On Mon, Nov 13, 2000 at 10:13:44AM +0100, Markus Stumpf wrote: On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 01:36:08PM -0800, Ben Beuchler wrote: What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'? It probably would also be cool to have a cdb for vitualdomains, just like morercpthosts. That would mean that virtualdomains updates are instantly instead of only happening at SIGHUP? There is no performance benefit in having virtualdomains as a cdb. Greetz, Peter -- dataloss networks '/ignore-ance is bliss' - me 'Het leven is een stuiterbal, maar de mijne plakt aan t plafond!' - me
Re: qmail 1.04
Ben Beuchler writes: On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You Granted. could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'? Create a virtualdomain (say, example.com:example), and create a -owner file (say, ~example/.qmail-foo-owner). Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The envelope sender gets set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If that mail bounces, its delivery is controlled by ~example/.qmail-example-foo-owner, not ~example/.qmail-foo-owner as you might expect. Oops. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Re: qmail 1.04
On Fri, Nov 10, 2000 at 12:41:20AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: Create a virtualdomain (say, example.com:example), and create a -owner file (say, ~example/.qmail-foo-owner). Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] The envelope sender gets set to [EMAIL PROTECTED] If that mail bounces, its delivery is controlled by ~example/.qmail-example-foo-owner, not ~example/.qmail-foo-owner as you might expect. Oops. That *is* an interesting situation. Speaking of qmail updates, have there been any grumblings from DJB in the last decade or so about actually releasing a new version? -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
RE: qmail 1.04
Dave Kitabjian writes:
What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'?
Create a virtualdomain (say, example.com:example), and create a -owner
file (say, ~example/.qmail-foo-owner). Send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The envelope sender gets set to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Russ, where do you get "owner"? Wouldn't the envelope sender be set to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]"? Remember, this prepend is handled by qmail-send
before qmail-local ever gets to the .qmail file. Am I missing something?
Stripping out some non-applicable code from qmail-local, yes:
if (qmeox("-owner") == 0)
{
{
if (!stralloc_copys(ueo,local)) temp_nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(ueo,"-owner@")) temp_nomem();
if (!stralloc_cats(ueo,host)) temp_nomem();
}
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | The best way to help the poor
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | is to help the rich build
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | up their capital.
Re: qmail 1.04
At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote: We need a qmail 1.04. Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version. Where can I find it and where I can find a tutorial on it. Regards, Ruprecht --- INTERNOLIX Standards for Ebusiness INTERNOLIX AG Ruprecht Helms System-Engineer http://www.internolix.com mail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Weiherstr. 20Tel: +49-[0]7533-9945-71 78465 Konstanz Fax: +49-[0]7533-9945-79
Re: qmail 1.04
Ruprecht Helms writes: At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote: We need a qmail 1.04. Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version. No. I'm suggesting that we need a qmail 1.04. It need only change the documentation. The software is perfectly fine, although you could argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work right. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | This space for rent Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 03:36:53PM -, Russell Nelson wrote: We need a qmail 1.04. The instructions in INSTALL are out of date. People should be told to use ucspi-tcp and daemontools. I 100% agree with that. The most usefull patches should also be included in the official distribution, with for example a good ./configure to select the one you need. Regards, Olivier -- _ Olivier Mueller - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - PGPkeyID: 0E84D2EA - Switzerland qmail projects: http://omail.omnis.ch - http://webmail.omnis.ch PGP signature
Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You Granted. could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'? Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Re: qmail 1.04
sounds to be a great idea. First time i tried installing qmail i got confused because i didn´ t know what patches/add-ons are worth a look at or even not needed in a default install. Putting all (most needde parts) into a well documented one would be a great thing.. imho :) Anton Pirnat Am Don, 09 Nov 2000 schrieb Russell Nelson: We need a qmail 1.04. The instructions in INSTALL are out of date. People should be told to use ucspi-tcp and daemontools. The software is fine. It's just the documentation that needs to change. As always, I'm happy to do the work, if Dan is too busy. Why am I so adament that qmail-1.04 MUST be released? To reduce support costs and help people more quickly. A potential customer sent me the following question: Is there any way or any command by which i can mannually push all the mails to required destination which r there in the queue. Of course it's a FAQ, but I would really *really* like to tell him ``Just do this: svc -a /service/qmail''. I can't do that, though, because not everyone installs qmail that way. Instead, I have to tell him "You have to send an alarm signal to qmail-send." And he has to figure out how to do that on his system. -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | This space for rent Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | -- ~~~ # ___ !!! ( o ) )|( # _*_ ,,, ` _ _ ' ,|, (o o) # (o o)(o o) - (OXO) - (@ @) ooO--(_)--Ooo-8---(_)--Ooo-oO--(_)--Ooo-oO--(_)--Ooo-oO--(_)--Ooo- Anton Pirnat, pmg medien und service GmbH Schenkendorfstr. 17, D-70193 Stuttgart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: qmail 1.04
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Putting all (most needde parts) into a well documented one would be a great thing.. imho :) That won't happen. -Dave
Re: qmail 1.04
Russell Nelson wrote: Ruprecht Helms writes: At 15:36 09.11.00 +, Russell Nelson wrote: We need a qmail 1.04. Is there a new release (qmail 1.04.) in stable version. No. I'm suggesting that we need a qmail 1.04. It need only change the documentation. The software is perfectly fine, although you could argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work right. I think this is an excellent idea. I would also add that I think a few patches could be included (or added if this was ok) - my suggestions would be:- big-dns.patch condredirect.patch big-concurrency.patch syncdir.patch Although big-dns is not essential, and syncdir is only needed on Linux. The condredirect may also be optional ! I appear to have argued my way out of the patches - but I just trying to be flexible (big-concurrency apears the only essential one in humble view.) I can only repeat I think this is an excellent idea. I could contribute an install script (based on LWQ and for redhat / Linux but could be adapted (the only distro specific part is the addition to run levels)). Thanks Russ. Greg -- -russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | This space for rent Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX |
RE: qmail 1.04
Ups, is this a holy war comming up? :-) Goran P.S.: I personally think, that qmail is great, wouldn't change a thing, excpt maybe for the documentation, but hey... There is a good thing to it... This way you are forced into digging into qmail and actually understanding it... -Original Message- From: Ben Beuchler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 10:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: qmail 1.04 On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You Granted. could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'? Ben -- Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] MAILER-DAEMON (612) 321-9290 x101 Bitstream Underground www.bitstream.net
Re: qmail 1.04
On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 08:13:01PM +, Greg Cope wrote: out of the patches - but I just trying to be flexible (big-concurrency apears the only essential one in humble view.) Which hopefully will be irrelevant with zeroseek. Regards.
Re: qmail 1.04
Ben Beuchler [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Thu, Nov 09, 2000 at 11:45:44AM -0500, Russell Nelson wrote: argue that it needs a qmail-conf program just like djbdns has. You Granted. could also argue that virtualdomains and -owner files don't work What's wrong with 'virtualdomains'? It handles partial doman names (the clause "virtualdomains may contain wildcards" in man qmail-send) but it does not handle username extensions in a way that is useful for, e.g., virtual mailinglists. If you have an entry "user@domain:prepend", user is matched exactly with no special treatment for user-owner or user-return-bouncing-address etc. -- Frank Cringle, [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (+49 7745) 928759; fax: 928761
