Re: Sendmail or Qmail ? ..
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 02:19, Cameron L. Spitzer wrote:
> I've been running Qmail since '98. It's got a bottleneck
> in disk writes, but aside from that it's fast.
> (Anybody tried running the queue in a ramdisk?
Running the queue on a ramdisk would kill reliability.
Using a non-volatile RAM device however will significantly increase
performance without risk. Umem devices seem a good option for this, their
recent devices are PCI 2.2 - 64bit 66MHz and claim to sustain over 500MB/s
transfer rates with no seeks, I am not sure about Linux device driver support
for that, but the old versions worked well from all accounts.
If you put your queue on a Umem device you should get all the performance of a
RAM disk with all the reliability of a RAID hard drive device (better
reliability than a hard drive as there are no moving parts).
> Howabout in an fs made in a file mounted looback?)
What would be the benefit of a FS in a loopback mounted file? That should
kill performance and reliability at the same time.
> So I've given up on Qmail. I'm using Exim for small systems,
> and I'll try Postfix for my next big one.
I agree that Postfix is good. However for the last big ISP I was running
Qmail was chosen because it uses LDAP entries in the same way as Netscape
(the legacy email system) while Postfix has some minor differences.
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page