| 1 |
* Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits |
| 4 |
> > on Posfix @ Linux. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> It comes down to the IO scheduler. Linux is designed to be general purpose. |
| 7 |
> FreeBSD is designed to be much more specific. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
hmm, Linux provides several io schedulers - does choosing another |
| 10 |
one help here ? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > Well, portage could be much thinner if certain things would be |
| 13 |
> > moved explicitly out-of-scope or solved more generic on a |
| 14 |
> > different layer. (yes, I'm explicitly ignoring the historical |
| 15 |
> > issues right now ;-p). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> My beef with portage in my specific production setup is the amount of work it |
| 18 |
> takes my guys to keep everything up to date. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Yes, that's still a problem. I myself for example have a dozen of |
| 21 |
containers w/ Gentoo, and I'm still trying to figure out how to |
| 22 |
control which packages should be updated fully automatically, w/o |
| 23 |
triggering updates of others that I want to approve explicitly. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Once I've ported a buch of more packages to sysroot'ed builds, |
| 26 |
I'll migrate to Briegel[1]-built images. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
cu |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
[1] https://sourceforge.net/p/briegel/ |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 34 |
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT service -- http://www.metux.de/ |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
phone: +49 36207 519931 email: weigelt@×××××.de |
| 37 |
mobile: +49 151 27565287 icq: 210169427 skype: nekrad666 |
| 38 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 39 |
Embedded-Linux / Portierung / Opensource-QM / Verteilte Systeme |
| 40 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
Archives