From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 28 14:46:21 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53F4216A4CE for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:46:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from energistic.com (mail.energistic.com [216.54.148.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A573543D5C for ; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:46:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from steve@energistic.com) Received: from energistic.com (steve@localhost.energistic.com [127.0.0.1]) by energistic.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j3SEkJTD028566; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:46:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from steve@energistic.com) Received: (from steve@localhost) by energistic.com (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j3SEkJ7I025763; Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:46:19 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from steve) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 09:46:19 -0500 From: Steve Ames To: jim.durham@nepinc.com Message-ID: <20050428144619.GA8412@energistic.com> References: <200504281032.33822.jimd@nepinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200504281032.33822.jimd@nepinc.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,SPF_HELO_PASS, SPF_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST_TO autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on energistic.com cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Mail Server recommendations X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2005 14:46:21 -0000 Which version of FreeBSD are you running? Are you using 5.X to take full advantage of both processors? To get the 'quantum' upgrade a single faster machine is the way to go. Have you done any profiling to see where the current bottleneck is? Is it I/O, CPU cycles, network? In many cases it would make sense to put in another box to distribute the network/CPU load but that comes with increased storage complexity (getting all machines to write to a common filesystem)... but given that spamassassin and clamav are CPU and memory intensive I'd think that was a solid tradeoff. For the cost of buying one BIG machine you could get 2-3 of the size you have now and distribute the load. On Thu, Apr 28, 2005 at 10:32:33AM -0400, Jim Durham wrote: > Hi, > > We currently have a dual-1.8 Xeon box with 2gb ram and Raid-1 > 160mhz SCSI's running sendmail/procmail/spamassassin and clamav. > > Our place is growing, adding users and so, we need a bigger, > faster box. > > Question: Currently the box mentioned is a Dell PowerEdge 2650. > We like to deal with Dell, but it's not absolutely "written in > stone" that I do so. I bought a 2650 because we got one to run > a Windows server and I booted FreeBSD on it to see what it would > make of the PERC3 Raid and all that and it was just fine. The > 2650 just 'loves' FreeBSD, so we bought one and its worked well, > but we need more performance now. What bigger, faster box would > make a significant jump in speed and capacity runs FreeBSD well? > > I can get a 2850 with 3gb processors, 320mhz SCSIs and add more > RAM, but I'm not sure that would give us a quantum-leap in > performance. > > -- Thanks for any suggestions.. > > Jim Durham > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-isp@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-isp > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-isp-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"