Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:08:29 +0100 From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com> To: Francisco Reyes <lists@stringsutils.com> Cc: FreeBSD ISP <freebsd-isp@freebsd.org>, User Freebsd <freebsd@hub.org> Subject: Re: IAMP servers in FreeBSD for ISP Message-ID: <20060707150829.GA36657@uk.tiscali.com> In-Reply-To: <cone.1152284622.729752.18477.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> References: <cone.1152240742.658037.2598.1000@zoraida.natserv.net> <20060706235712.A1171@ganymede.hub.org> <20060707121846.GA36201@uk.tiscali.com> <cone.1152284622.729752.18477.1000@zoraida.natserv.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 07, 2006 at 11:03:42AM -0400, Francisco Reyes wrote: > >Remember that Courier has a proxy front-end built in, so you can use a > >proxy > >cluster instead of an NFS cluster (or even have some accounts on Courier > >and > >proxy others to Cyrus; a very nice migration tool) > > We tried the proxy once.. but the proxy machine was keeping an instance > running during the connection. Basically we saw a connection on the proxy > machine and another in the destination machine. Not sure if this is how it > is supposed to work or if we missconfigured. You will see a process running on the proxy machine for the duration of the connection; all it is doing is copying messages back and forth. There will be one process per connection, and this is how it's supposed to work. A process in the process table is not particularly expensive, and its RAM usage should be very low; however I'd agree that a single-process threaded proxy would be cheaper. > >although Courier's sqwebmail has a not particularly pretty interface, it > >*does* perform very well under heavy usage > > Even with Inbox with large number of files? > Say 5,000+ Most users had a 10MB quota :-) We also bounced incoming mail for mailboxes which had not been logged into for 6 weeks. Regards, Brian.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060707150829.GA36657>