From: Patrick Ben Koetter on 22 Jul 2010 03:11 * Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com>: > Wietse Venema put forth on 7/21/2010 2:22 PM: > > Ram: > >> One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays > >> the mails to other servers. > >> Since there is almost no mail queued on the server , I think it is will > >> be good to mount /var/spool/postfix on a tmpfs partition. > > > > You will lose all mail in the queue when the system crashes. > > I agree with Victor that this is a really bad idea. > > +3 > > If you truly have a _need_ for a super fast Postfix queue, I suggest using a > good quality wear leveling SSD. You'll get random I/O performance many times > greater than a 15k rpm disk, but with data persistence, unlike when using a > ramdisk queue. There are many fast good quality SSDs available in various > capacities for between $100-200 USD, in standard 2.5" and 3.5" hard disk > mounting form factors. You can get about 150 msg/sec a 100k on a single Postfix instance if you use a set of 10k rpm discs in a RAID 0 and server hardware. p(a)rick -- All technical questions asked privately will be automatically answered on the list and archived for public access unless privacy is explicitely required and justified. saslfinger (debugging SMTP AUTH): <http://postfix.state-of-mind.de/patrick.koetter/saslfinger/>
From: Stan Hoeppner on 22 Jul 2010 05:50 Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 7/22/2010 2:11 AM: > * Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com>: >> Wietse Venema put forth on 7/21/2010 2:22 PM: >>> Ram: >>>> One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays >>>> the mails to other servers. >>>> Since there is almost no mail queued on the server , I think it is will >>>> be good to mount /var/spool/postfix on a tmpfs partition. >>> >>> You will lose all mail in the queue when the system crashes. >>> I agree with Victor that this is a really bad idea. >> >> +3 >> >> If you truly have a _need_ for a super fast Postfix queue, I suggest using a >> good quality wear leveling SSD. You'll get random I/O performance many times >> greater than a 15k rpm disk, but with data persistence, unlike when using a >> ramdisk queue. There are many fast good quality SSDs available in various >> capacities for between $100-200 USD, in standard 2.5" and 3.5" hard disk >> mounting form factors. > > You can get about 150 msg/sec a 100k on a single Postfix instance if you use > a set of 10k rpm discs in a RAID 0 and server hardware. If my math is correct, I believe Ram's relay server has a queue load of less than 15 msg/sec on average, which is easily handled by a single SATA disk. 50,000/hr = 50,000/3600 = 13.88 msg/sec Ram, why are you considering ramdisk or SSD for your Postfix queues given that a regular disk would seem to handle your load rather easily? Or, is this more of a philosophical issue of not wanting to write anything to disk that isn't permanent? -- Stan
From: Ram on 22 Jul 2010 09:12 On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 04:50 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Patrick Ben Koetter put forth on 7/22/2010 2:11 AM: > > * Stan Hoeppner <stan(a)hardwarefreak.com>: > >> Wietse Venema put forth on 7/21/2010 2:22 PM: > >>> Ram: > >>>> One server of ours just accepts the mails from clients and then relays > >>>> the mails to other servers. > >>>> Since there is almost no mail queued on the server , I think it is will > >>>> be good to mount /var/spool/postfix on a tmpfs partition. > >>> > >>> You will lose all mail in the queue when the system crashes. > >>> I agree with Victor that this is a really bad idea. > >> > >> +3 > >> > >> If you truly have a _need_ for a super fast Postfix queue, I suggest using a > >> good quality wear leveling SSD. You'll get random I/O performance many times > >> greater than a 15k rpm disk, but with data persistence, unlike when using a > >> ramdisk queue. There are many fast good quality SSDs available in various > >> capacities for between $100-200 USD, in standard 2.5" and 3.5" hard disk > >> mounting form factors. > > > > You can get about 150 msg/sec a 100k on a single Postfix instance if you use > > a set of 10k rpm discs in a RAID 0 and server hardware. > > If my math is correct, I believe Ram's relay server has a queue load of less > than 15 msg/sec on average, which is easily handled by a single SATA disk. > > 50,000/hr = 50,000/3600 = 13.88 msg/sec > > Ram, why are you considering ramdisk or SSD for your Postfix queues given that > a regular disk would seem to handle your load rather easily? Or, is this more > of a philosophical issue of not wanting to write anything to disk that isn't > permanent? > You are right. If Postfix alone was running on this server will be able to handle (50k-70k msgs/hr) with the given I/O. But there are other custom functions running on this machine. I was just considering ramdisk , because that was the laziest way I could get rid of unnecessary "IOPS" to disk. Anyway I think I will go by what all you folk say. No ramdisk for postfix. Thanks for the inputs. Ram
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 Prev: Exim & RFC compliant Next: What is the proper way to deal with non-existing e-mail addresses? |