| 1 |
Apparently, though unproven, at 18:43 on Friday 10 September 2010, Florian |
| 2 |
Philipp did opine thusly: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Am 10.09.2010 01:49, schrieb Enrico Weigelt: |
| 5 |
> > * Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
> >>> But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits |
| 7 |
> >>> on Posfix @ Linux. |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> It comes down to the IO scheduler. Linux is designed to be general |
| 10 |
> >> purpose. FreeBSD is designed to be much more specific. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > hmm, Linux provides several io schedulers - does choosing another |
| 13 |
> > one help here ? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> And if it's so good for certain workloads, why hasn't FreeBSD's |
| 16 |
> scheduler been ported to Linux? Or is the whole software stack (block |
| 17 |
> devices etc.) so completely different that it wouldn't work? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I don't have an answer for that - just some observations that are quite old |
| 20 |
and maybe not even valid anymore. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Either way, I have mail relays that pump 3,000,000 mails each per day and have |
| 23 |
done so flawlessly for years. I'm not about to risk that to see if I can find |
| 24 |
another 0.x% performance gain :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com |
Archives