From owner-freebsd-hardware@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 18 18:06:18 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B07AF16A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:06:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from cobra.acceleratedweb.net (cobra-gw.acceleratedweb.net [207.99.79.37]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C96A043D2D for ; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 18:06:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from simon@optinet.com) Received: (qmail 6861 invoked by uid 110); 19 Mar 2004 02:06:16 -0000 Received: from ool-18baaf5c.dyn.optonline.net (HELO win2kpc1) (24.186.175.92) by cobra.acceleratedweb.net with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 02:06:16 -0000 From: "Simon" To: "Olaf Hoyer" Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 21:06:58 -0500 Priority: Normal X-Mailer: PMMail 2000 Professional (2.20.2661) For Windows 2000 (5.0.2195;4) In-Reply-To: <20040319013145.P44321@gaff.hhhr.ision.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20040319020617.C96A043D2D@mx1.FreeBSD.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.1 cc: Olaf Hoyer cc: Artem Koutchine cc: Lanny Baron cc: "freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Multiprocessor system VS one processor system X-BeenThere: freebsd-hardware@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion of FreeBSD hardware List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:06:18 -0000 Few million local emails is about 23 a second, I don't see that as a big problem on dual Xeon server given the MTA is written properly. Of course you did not mention anything like virus/spam scanning. Simple local delivery is not CPU intensive. Few million mailboxes is nothing more than several files on a filesystem and few config entries in a database per mailbox, again not a problem. The ServerWorks chipsets have been extremely stable in my experience. Keep in mind, the cost of Sun hardware, especially going several years back, is extremely high. The idea of a cost-effective server that doesn't cost 10s or even 100s of thousands of dollars is very appealing to small businesses. Of course, there is no Intel server that is as scalable as latest Sun server, but that is not what most FreeBSD users are after, at least I don't think so. -Simon On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:36:22 +0100 (CET), Olaf Hoyer wrote: >On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Simon wrote: > >> >> What exactly is not easily achievable with a modern dual Xeon Intel server >> with 20 modern SCSI harddrives and proper RAID card? that is on an old >> E450 Sparc? have you personally done any testing to back this up? surely, >> the chipset design of Intel boards are not up-to-par with latest Sun servers, >> but Intel is catching up. There was just never enough demand until now. > >Yes, its an E450 with 4x400MHZ Ultrasparc 2, IIRC with 2 or 4MB 2nd >level cache, acting as mail server, pumping several millions of emails >around per day, with 2 million mailboxes to deliver to, being one of >several mailhosts. > >You simply need the 5 SCSI busses and 18 spindles (2 for OS) for >mailspool >performance, and the stability of the hardware and the scalability >of Solaris under high stress and load. > >Thats a region where a i386-based box won't fit easily, also the >diagnostics regarding flaky RAM or CPU are way better with SUN than with >most i386-based hardware. > >We did some test with a 480 with external storages, therefore less >SCSI-busses. The 480 clearly lost. > >> >> -Simon >> > Olaf >-- >Olaf Hoyer ohoyer@gaff.hhhr.ision.net >Fuerchterliche Erlebniss geben zu raten, >ob der, welcher sie erlebt, nicht etwas Fuerchterliches ist. >(Nietzsche, Jenseits von Gut und Boese) >