[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

Reply to: