🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <727vfm$6e6$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>,
Brian 'Beej' Hall <beej@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>I'm really confused about this since we don't run Microsoft products on
>the mail server.
>

I think some of the old HP hardware is just getting overburdened.  I think
if we had Linux running on a couple of DEC Alpha, Sun boxes, or heck
even some Intel Pentiums, we could see some performance increase.  Especially
if we had some fast RAID's hooked up to them.  Course getting some of that
stuff requires a budget. . .


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dale Harris  <rodmur@csuchico.edu>   PGP KeyID: E26EC5FD      
http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~rodmur/
|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|+|

According to Brian 'Beej' Hall <beej@ecst.csuchico.edu>:
:Something seems to be amiss.  After mail from SF took 4 hours to arrive,
:I figured it was just something out there on the net that was slow.
:When a local mailing list started lagging, I guessed it was just the
:list machine.
:
:But now I've mailed a news article (to myself) from abyss (HA!  ABYSS!
:None of this cancer BS), and it took 40 minutes to arrive.
:
:I'm really confused about this since we don't run Microsoft products on
:the mail server.

Microsoft products are not the only ones that run slowly on old hardware.
As best as I can tell, and I would be happy to be proved wrong, the email
queues up on our SMTP server, because it delivers (i.e. leaves the server)
at least three times as slow as it receives.  There is probably more than
one reason for this, but the only thing I have to blame right now is old
hardware.  Note that replacing the SMTP server with a faster machine
probably wouldn't do much good, as the bottleneck would most likely then
move to the actual mail server.

-- 
Py -- 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105...
Pythagoras Watson -- "Live long and may all your kernels pop."
INET: py@ecst.csuchico.edu === COMPUSERVE: cspy@compuserve.com

In article <72874p$hsi$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>,
Pythagoras Watson <py@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>
>Microsoft products are not the only ones that run slowly on old hardware.
>As best as I can tell, and I would be happy to be proved wrong, the email
>queues up on our SMTP server, because it delivers (i.e. leaves the server)
>at least three times as slow as it receives.  There is probably more than
>one reason for this, but the only thing I have to blame right now is old
>hardware.  Note that replacing the SMTP server with a faster machine
>probably wouldn't do much good, as the bottleneck would most likely then
>move to the actual mail server.
>

So then, the only answer is to get a new mail server.  I wonder where
that will come from...


BAPper

In article <728mm4$t68$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>,
Brian A. Pomerantz <bapper@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>In article <72874p$hsi$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>,
>Pythagoras Watson <py@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
>>
>>Microsoft products are not the only ones that run slowly on old hardware.
>>As best as I can tell, and I would be happy to be proved wrong, the email
>>queues up on our SMTP server, because it delivers (i.e. leaves the server)
>>at least three times as slow as it receives.  There is probably more than
>>one reason for this, but the only thing I have to blame right now is old
>>hardware.  Note that replacing the SMTP server with a faster machine
>>probably wouldn't do much good, as the bottleneck would most likely then
>>move to the actual mail server.
>>
>
>So then, the only answer is to get a new mail server.  I wonder where
>that will come from...
>
>
>BAPper


Don't you know? Everything (as in student mail), is moving to 
Butte's netscape mail server...


woo hoo!





-- 
Laura A. Randall                        California State University, Chico
email: lrandall@ecst.csuchico.edu       FILIAHO Forever

According to Laura Randall <lrandall@ecst.csuchico.edu>:
:In article <728mm4$t68$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>,
:Brian A. Pomerantz <bapper@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
:>In article <72874p$hsi$1@hubble.csuchico.edu>,
:>Pythagoras Watson <py@ecst.csuchico.edu> wrote:
:>>
:>>Microsoft products are not the only ones that run slowly on old hardware.
:>>As best as I can tell, and I would be happy to be proved wrong, the email
:>>queues up on our SMTP server, because it delivers (i.e. leaves the server)
:>>at least three times as slow as it receives.  There is probably more than
:>>one reason for this, but the only thing I have to blame right now is old
:>>hardware.  Note that replacing the SMTP server with a faster machine
:>>probably wouldn't do much good, as the bottleneck would most likely then
:>>move to the actual mail server.
:>
:>So then, the only answer is to get a new mail server.  I wonder where
:>that will come from...

It might come from HP (the grant is still out there).  Or a programmatic
solution might surface.  Or enough users could leave such that it is no
longer a problem.

:Don't you know? Everything (as in student mail), is moving to 
:Butte's netscape mail server...

Kind of.  ECT will retain its mail server, which ECT users* will still
be able to log on to and use.  It is just that a majority of users will
migrate over, so the volume of email should go down dramatically.  Note
that the Great Migration will happen over next semester, so things are not
changing just yet.

-Py

* The exact definition of "ECT user" is extremely fuzzy and is likely to
  remain so for some time.

-- 
Py -- 3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105...
Pythagoras Watson -- "Live long and may all your kernels pop."
INET: py@ecst.csuchico.edu === COMPUSERVE: cspy@compuserve.com