From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 11:18:14 EDT
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> That plan is maybe to get rid of a locally attached RAID on the
> mailboxserver and to use a network attached storage (which already
> exists, the actual product name is not known to me - but I'll find out).
>
> 1. Does any network storage platform come to mind as being
> particularly fast (in terms of "postfix needs to write mails to
> maildir, while clients hammer away using POP3 and IMAP) while being
> reasonably economical?
>
This is really a POP/IMAP question. Postfix will impose a negligible load
on the mailstore (and will not care too much about sporadic latency) in
comparison with interactive POP/IMAP users. The I/O footprint of POP/IMAP
will depend heavily on the POP/IMAP server architecture, the mail clients
(does it cache content, metadata, ... does it disconnect and reconnect
often, ...) and user habits.
You should probably ask on the appropriate POP/IMAP server list. With
maildir the cost of scanning the directory for messages could be high. The
IMAP server needs an efficient/stable algorithm to assign message "uids"
so that client caching is maximally effective.
The default answer for NFS attach is NetApp, if you find a good support
engineer (who wants to help you get the right answer even if it does not
lead to a sale), they may have experience with sizing servers for IMAP
workloads, with luck using your particular IMAP server.
-- Viktor. Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored. Please do not ignore the "Reply-To" header. To unsubscribe from the postfix-users list, visit http://www.postfix.org/lists.html or click the link below: <mailto:?body=unsubscribe%20postfix-users>
|
|
|