E-mail worm alert: Mydoom/Novarg.A

[somereseller]

Originally Posted by jmbeach

... - plus the added resources would negatively affect us all. I don't think any of us want to add to the stress put on these servers.

We should get more and better mail servers then I mean others are doing it without problems.

[jmbeach]

Originally Posted by somereseller

We should get more and better mail servers then I mean others are doing it without problems.

Not sure how much bigger dual 2.4 xeon's can get

Thanks for the hard work Matt. Oh, and everyone else too...

[somereseller]

Dual Opterons? =)

[jmbeach]

Dual Mac G5's - oh no, I just said Mac

Please go easy on me

[somereseller]

Hit the Macheads forums. Around 30% are disappointed with their buy =(.

[jmbeach]

they sure are purdy, though...

[admin]

You guys must just be loseing it around here. Do you really think I would buy intel if AMD or even crapy mac was any better.. No..

The numbers say it all, xeon's will smoke any other x86 system out there. We run all that fastest stuff out there, dual xeon, 15K drives 160 or 320 scsi, not going to get much better then that.


I also asked matt to look at clamv but I don't think he has had time yet because of all of the network fun going on..

We will look at it but, I don't think it will work in our setup...



NAV or McAfee would do you a LOT of good..

[somereseller]

I'm using clamav on a server. It's easy to setup and works well. It automatically updated itself with the new signatures and started to work on those emails : deleting the attachement and taging the emails. I even have nice graphs that shows me the number of virii encountered

[admin]

That does sound cool.. Never used it my self.. Just not sure it would be able to take the load.. There is only one way to really find out.. Kind of like other crap that seems to happen to us first.. I know others that use it as well but everyone I have seen using has less then 100 or so domains on there servers.

[somereseller]

Btw, dual Opteron 2.2 kill dual Xeon 3.06 and dual itanium for linux webservers

http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/a...FElinux_1.html

So you may not have the fastest setup after all =)

[admin]

Well the xeons we get are about $230 bucks, the Opteron is about $900. Also we run FreeBSD not Linux. FreeBSD 4.9 does not even have support for Opteron's that I know of "yet".

But remember that mail is more disk speed not CPU as much as for basic mail stuff, matts going to test clamav here soon..

[somereseller]

I was just teasing you

It's easy to compare things when money is not an issue

[Brangwyn]

Well if moneys not an issue, I'm sure Cray build a fine mail server

http://www.cray.com/products/systems/x1/

[jetzkr8]

Talking about speeding up hdd access, wouldn't setting up higher RAID level hdd's do the job? The server config seems to indicate single hdd's.

As far as getting more juice out of systems, CPU's have their limits, then again hdd config can be reved up using RAID from what I have read.

Wondering about QUAD XEON systems? Feasible?

[Brian]

Originally Posted by jetzkr8

Talking about speeding up hdd access, wouldn't setting up higher RAID level hdd's do the job? The server config seems to indicate single hdd's.

As far as getting more juice out of systems, CPU's have their limits, then again hdd config can be reved up using RAID from what I have read.

Wondering about QUAD XEON systems? Feasible?

RAID can speed up disk I/O, or slow it down... depends how many disks are in the array. Generally, RAID 10 is best overall performer and redundancy combined, but has the highest cost too... You really need to look at what function the server is doing to determine which bottlenecks to expect. This will then indicate what part of the server you'd want to beef up.

Quad Xeons are good for things with lots of CPU overhead (obviously)... so for a web server, that may not do too much. For email, depending on the type of server, it may help a lot (I use quads for my ex2k clusters at work). For a database server, definitely it would help. Again, it depends on the server function.