From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ou8sj-0006qs-TR for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:03:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4C957E072C; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ew0-f53.google.com (mail-ew0-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117A7E072C for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 19:02:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy3 with SMTP id 3so2157344ewy.40 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:date :user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=FI1DSC1cDHN7ZZdFgPo/9Yjhz0uWx88rJcAWZcFV6xo=; b=gseSdG7XfLTfVpOT3QnP2WU57Qd9HxuRRLYa26B9+veR9Hook6VUm2DahkPZue3Yhf AvR4g4qXEA55DIz4oHdfTv/G5uS7GXD/GIRPBltfnZZujqsHvZV0pMh6jEdvAGemU0Dg El4PmfoQ+l66ktYgyiThVBNote1ODEvKWAvL8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=WrkMSCYV0zZW4zNbewlOdmdz2LFu7RyMzAwL/xiVWxrW4POQxFRoI90Uhhf0sNVbQ0 fcHqe3F4QkMX1SX7WAJY+Gp0QGhJJFQlApvebKUNFYpMWniN9VdO7Q6t/I8X2/atprfc LgvQPFxlqKuj2iD0yFLgnJwwJbY4LiB/xChNU= Received: by 10.213.10.141 with SMTP id p13mr22910ebp.23.1284145373455; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nazgul.localnet (196-210-153-155.dynamic.isadsl.co.za [196.210.153.155]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a48sm4361222eei.12.2010.09.10.12.02.50 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 10 Sep 2010 12:02:52 -0700 (PDT) From: Alan McKinnon To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Shared libraries in Gentoo Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 21:02:48 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-ck-r2; KDE/4.5.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Florian Philipp References: <20100909234911.GA8209@nibiru.local> <4C8A6034.2040908@f_philipp.fastmail.net> In-Reply-To: <4C8A6034.2040908@f_philipp.fastmail.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009102102.49137.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 398887d8-0ed3-4ab7-9048-034d931a704a X-Archives-Hash: a2ac031faece8bc56809048a1db0a10b Apparently, though unproven, at 18:43 on Friday 10 September 2010, Florian Philipp did opine thusly: > Am 10.09.2010 01:49, schrieb Enrico Weigelt: > > * Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>> But I'd really like to know what produces the performance hits > >>> on Posfix @ Linux. > >> > >> It comes down to the IO scheduler. Linux is designed to be general > >> purpose. FreeBSD is designed to be much more specific. > > > > hmm, Linux provides several io schedulers - does choosing another > > one help here ? > > And if it's so good for certain workloads, why hasn't FreeBSD's > scheduler been ported to Linux? Or is the whole software stack (block > devices etc.) so completely different that it wouldn't work? I don't have an answer for that - just some observations that are quite old and maybe not even valid anymore. Either way, I have mail relays that pump 3,000,000 mails each per day and have done so flawlessly for years. I'm not about to risk that to see if I can find another 0.x% performance gain :-) -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com