You can do this with QoS features in the 2.2 kernels. Just read the ipchains homepage (somewhere in the docs, you'll figure out) and see how you can assign different strategies when queueing different types of IP packets.
You're talking from what you've heard. I'm talking from my own experience. I have a couple of years of experience as a network and system administrator. I saw (and worked with) both Linux and Windows. And i say you are totally wrong. I'm not an OS fan; i think the OS is just a tool, and not a purpose. But Linux did very well whatever i wanted him to do, and Windows failed badly. The Linux fileservers ar far more stable than Windows NT, and this is true even when using Windows networks (NetBIOS protocol); a Linux file/print server for a bunch of Windows/Linux workstations works so well that is totally transparent for the users, but a Windows NT server is enough unstable to be noticed by them...:-) The same Linux file/print servers are working very well under high load (file up/downloads combined with multiple print tasks to some network printers), but Windows NT crashes and shows blue screens randomly, even at a small amount of requests. Even if you are searching all over the world, you will not find a single case of viral infection on any Linux servers, simply because there aren't such viruses, but Windows is often just a craddle for baby-viruses waiting to spread. And if you wanna hear my opinion about an operating system for servers that is vulnerable to virus attacks, i will not tell it to you, because it contains some disgracious ugly words...:-) I do not know why you are saying those things. But i'm speaking, i repeat, from a many-year-experience with full-time working networks, and i am happy to use anything that makes my clients happy.:-) I don't think that a server wich goes down once in a week (or even worse) is making them happy, i can tell you from plain daily experience... And Linux never does so. And it is faster than Windows NT, no matter what those benchmarks are saying. There's no better benchmark than a real network, in a real company, with real nervous users.:-) What experience do you have with NT? With Linux? With network servers in a real enterprise environment? Only if you tried both NT and Linux, and used them in your daily jobs you are allowed to cast comparisons around. I might be wrong (and i appologise if so), but i think this is not your case, judging from what you are saying... Sorry for the flames, but i just can't swallow FUD (fear-uncertainity-doubt) techniques, wherever i meet them.
I used to be a sendmail fan, but only VERY little experience with qmail convinced me that if you don't need some arcane features deeply embedded into the sendmail's belly:-) then you might enjoy that *ultrafast* and extremely lightweight MTA named qmail. I saw you are concerned about the system load, and you say that sendmail works much much better than the Microsoft's MTAs. Well, that's true; i have a long marriage with sendmail:-) and i saw him working very well, but qmail works with the speed of light, and put almost no load on the system. It happens that one of my servers has 150 mail accounts, just like your server, and uses sendmail. It's a K6/200 and has very little load due to sendmail, but it has also an Apache and a Squid, and the total load tends to be somehow high. But recently i did some experiments with qmail on another box (K6/166), and i was *very* surprised - i sent some messages from one console and tried to see how qmail logs to syslogd on the 12'th console (ALT-F12). Well, i never could actually see how the log messages appeared! They always were faster than i was, and this would never happen with sendmail...
Slashdot Mirror
"Music" for stoopid people
You can do this with QoS features in the 2.2 kernels. Just read the ipchains homepage (somewhere in the docs, you'll figure out) and see how you can assign different strategies when queueing different types of IP packets.
You're talking from what you've heard. I'm talking from my own experience. I have a couple of years of experience as a network and system administrator. I saw (and worked with) both Linux and Windows. And i say you are totally wrong. :-) :-) :-) I don't think that a server wich goes down once in a week (or even worse) is making them happy, i can tell you from plain daily experience... And Linux never does so. And it is faster than Windows NT, no matter what those benchmarks are saying. There's no better benchmark than a real network, in a real company, with real nervous users. :-)
I'm not an OS fan; i think the OS is just a tool, and not a purpose. But Linux did very well whatever i wanted him to do, and Windows failed badly.
The Linux fileservers ar far more stable than Windows NT, and this is true even when using Windows networks (NetBIOS protocol); a Linux file/print server for a bunch of Windows/Linux workstations works so well that is totally transparent for the users, but a Windows NT server is enough unstable to be noticed by them...
The same Linux file/print servers are working very well under high load (file up/downloads combined with multiple print tasks to some network printers), but Windows NT crashes and shows blue screens randomly, even at a small amount of requests.
Even if you are searching all over the world, you will not find a single case of viral infection on any Linux servers, simply because there aren't such viruses, but Windows is often just a craddle for baby-viruses waiting to spread. And if you wanna hear my opinion about an operating system for servers that is vulnerable to virus attacks, i will not tell it to you, because it contains some disgracious ugly words...
I do not know why you are saying those things. But i'm speaking, i repeat, from a many-year-experience with full-time working networks, and i am happy to use anything that makes my clients happy.
What experience do you have with NT? With Linux? With network servers in a real enterprise environment? Only if you tried both NT and Linux, and used them in your daily jobs you are allowed to cast comparisons around. I might be wrong (and i appologise if so), but i think this is not your case, judging from what you are saying...
Sorry for the flames, but i just can't swallow FUD (fear-uncertainity-doubt) techniques, wherever i meet them.
I used to be a sendmail fan, but only VERY little experience with qmail convinced me that if you don't need some arcane features deeply embedded into the sendmail's belly :-) then you might enjoy that *ultrafast* and extremely lightweight MTA named qmail. :-) and i saw him working very well, but qmail works with the speed of light, and put almost no load on the system.
I saw you are concerned about the system load, and you say that sendmail works much much better than the Microsoft's MTAs. Well, that's true; i have a long marriage with sendmail
It happens that one of my servers has 150 mail accounts, just like your server, and uses sendmail. It's a K6/200 and has very little load due to sendmail, but it has also an Apache and a Squid, and the total load tends to be somehow high. But recently i did some experiments with qmail on another box (K6/166), and i was *very* surprised - i sent some messages from one console and tried to see how qmail logs to syslogd on the 12'th console (ALT-F12). Well, i never could actually see how the log messages appeared! They always were faster than i was, and this would never happen with sendmail...