From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri May 7 09:55:45 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03F1C16A4CE for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailtest.sd73.bc.ca (mailtest.sd73.bc.ca [142.24.13.140]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 773FF43D48 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:44 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from fcash@sd73.bc.ca) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailtest.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F1AD73324 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mailtest.sd73.bc.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mailtest.sd73.bc.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 48985-04 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.166] (unknown [192.168.0.166]) by mailtest.sd73.bc.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47E3C73306 for ; Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Freddie Cash Organization: School District 73 To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:38 -0700 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <00d601c4344f$f1bdb920$41c3c3cf@office.sihope.com> In-Reply-To: <00d601c4344f$f1bdb920$41c3c3cf@office.sihope.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200405070955.38120.fcash@sd73.bc.ca> X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at sd73.bc.ca X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 07 May 2004 10:56:57 -0700 Subject: Re: 5.2.1 stability X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 16:55:45 -0000 On May 7, 2004 09:25 am, Adam Maloney wrote: > We've been having SMP issues with 4.9 and 4.10 on a couple different > pieces of hardware, but have had success with 5.2.1. I asked this > particular question ons freebsd-table, but I think -current might be > a better place for it. > If we can get our necessary services running on these boxes under > 5.2.1, how stable is it likely to be? Basically, if I setup one of > these boxes as a mailserver, and it will only ever be a mailserver, > can I expect the 5.2.1 codebase to behave in the long term? I've been running a mail gateway with Postfix, Amavisd-new, ClamAV, and SpamAssassin for about 3 months now running 5.2.1-RELEASE. The server is a dual-AthlonMP 2200+ with 3.5 GB RAM and 3 200 GB drives in a RAID5 setup using a 3Ware Escalade 7506-4LP card. Had some problems with a test install of Courier-IMAP on that server when running the ULE schedule and ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES enabled in the kernel. Trying to manipulate a folder with more than 10,000 messages would panic the kernel (spinlock held for more than 5 seconds, or no kernel memory left) and force a manual run of fsck on the 300 GB /home partition. Switching back to the 4BSD scheduler without ADAPTIVE_MUTEXES fixed that. The server has been running without problems for over a month now. The server blocks about 5,000 spam and 4 - 6,000 virus messages a day, and lets through about 10,000 or so clean messages. Handles mail for about 15 domains. Load average rarely goes about 2, CPU sits around 10 - 15% most of the time. Works quite nicely. -- Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP Helpdesk / Network Support Tech School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] fcash@sd73.bc.ca helpdesk@sd73.bc.ca