Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Running on idle systems

Expand Messages
  • Michael Tokarev
    ... By default these dirs -- /var/spool/postfix/run/{pid,private,public} - should be created at install time just like now these dirs are create in
    Message 1 of 23 , May 1, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 01.05.2012 17:09, Wietse Venema wrote:
      > Michael Tokarev:
      >> The "trick" I use with postfix for a long time locally
      >> to address this issue is to mount a tmpfs on linux on
      >> /var/spool/postfix/run, create subdirs (pid, public,
      >> private) there [...]
      >>
      >> So, the question is: can postfix change the paths so
      >> that all these "runtime" dirs are in a single subdir
      >> (as run/pid, run/public, run/private) - that is changing
      >> 3 strings in postfix code (and postfix-files) and adding
      >> one extra line into postfix-files, -- in order to simplify
      >> such a setup ?
      >
      > Sounds reasonable. However, this is not the only option.
      >
      > 1) Mounting tmpfs over a mail queue subdirectory introduces additional
      > dependency (something needs to mount and populate spool/run
      > before any Postfix program is allowed to execute) otherwise there
      > will be surprises when a Postfix program needs to be executed
      > before everything is up and running (for example, when some boot
      > script wants to submit mail about saved editor buffers, this
      > will result in "postdrop: warning: unable to look up public/pickup:
      > No such file or directory"). Normally, a missing "public/pickup"
      > directory is a sign of major trouble (no mail will ever be picked
      > up). This would violate one basic Postfix principle, which is
      > that it must be able to submit mail at any time even before all
      > daemons are up and running.

      By default these dirs -- /var/spool/postfix/run/{pid,private,public} -
      should be created at install time just like now these dirs are create
      in /var/spool/postfix. The only change I'm asking about is to move
      the "runtime" directories into a subdir (suggesting to name it "run"),
      I don't ask to mount anything in there or to create these on boot.

      With this scheme, all default installs will be functional just like
      now, but the option to mount some tmpfs over /var/spool/postfix/run
      _and_ create {pid,private,public} subdirs in there will be easier.

      That's whole difference: just moving these 3 into a subdir, to
      group them together, all the rest remains the same.

      This change does not add any additional external dependency. Only
      when some separate filesystem gets mounted over there, only in that
      case something should create the subdirs inside, and this "something"
      can be the same which did the mount.

      > 2) We could wait until all commodity boxes have solid-state drives.
      > SSDs have many desirable properties and prices are coming down.

      This question has been asked in context of SSDs too, like, it is a
      good idea to avoid extra writes to SSD. I've no idea how reliable
      these beasts are, actually, - reports varies greatly, probably as
      with everything else, there are cheaper less reliable models and
      more expensive, but more reliable. I dunno, I never used any SSD
      myself so far.

      > 3) Instead of changing the file system layout, we could change
      > master.cf to use "unix" instead of "fifo" endpoints for the queue
      > manager and pickup services. The reason for using FIFOs is that
      > Solaris 2.4 UNIX-domain sockets locked up the kernel during
      > Postfix tests (the change to FIFOs then exposed bugs in several
      > 4.4BSD implementations, but I disgress).

      Yes, I remember that change to work around an issue on solaris.

      After all, this can be a compile-time option in sys_defs.h. I
      think I suggested just that when the original bug has been
      identified, but I don't remember why FIFO has been choosen
      unconditionally -- most likely because it just works everywhere.

      But I know you dislike partial solutions - me dislikes them too :)

      > I would prefer the third solution, as it introduces no external
      > dependencies on boot scripts to mount and populate spool/postfix/run,
      > and it introduces no visible changes to the file system layout.
      >
      >> I'm fine to change postfix-files locally so it looks at
      >> run/pid etc instead of pid, but that appears to be a bit
      >> ugly...
      >
      > I don't understand why this is needed at all. On my own systems,
      > "ls -lat /var/spool/postfix/pid" shows that there are no writes to
      > the directory itself or to any files in that directory after the
      > mail system has started up.

      Note the word "etc" after run/pid. I added all 3 "runtime" dirs into
      the mix -- pid, private, public -- the directories where the files
      makes any sense at all till postfix is running _only_. Files in
      there does not exist, so to say, when it is not running - even if
      formally corresponding inodes do exist.

      This is exactly the case for /var/run directory, and nowadays it
      become quite common to use some tmpfs for this directory - one of
      the reasons is a problem of pid boot files after fresh boot (or,
      you may say it is a problem of stupid startup scripts who does not
      verify that the pid listed in a pidfile actually correspond to our
      daemon and not some other random process - but tmpfs on /var/run
      makes this problem go away completely).

      That's why I grouped all 3 "runtime" dirs together in my setup and
      moved them into a tmpfs - there's just no reason for them to be in
      a regular filesystem which preserves content over reboots. Yes
      it is obviously not necessary to do this just to stop the filesystem
      writes and spinning up disks.

      Besides, the same effect can be achieved by using subdirs of "pid"
      directory for private and public dirs, -- ie, instead of

      run/pid, run/private, run/public

      it is equally easy to have

      pid, pid/private, pid/public

      since files in pid/ does not clash with names "private" and "public".
      This way, filesystem layout changes less, but that's unimportant
      details.

      And yes, I verified the socket code (instead of pipe code) on linux
      a few days ago and it appears to work fine there too. So indeed, this
      is a very good possibility too, but it does not cover solaris well.

      Thanks,

      /mjt
    • Postfix Support Mail
      I m currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking about postscreen, which I hadn t considered before. What are the pros and cons of one
      Message 2 of 23 , May 1, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
        about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.

        What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
        one over the other for a given application?

        --Mac
      • karavelov@mail.bg
        ... They use different, complementing strategies to fight spam. We currently run both of them (postscreen, greylisting) with great success. Another greylisting
        Message 3 of 23 , May 1, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          ----- Цитат от Postfix Support Mail (postfixsm@...), на 01.05.2012 в 22:14 -----

          > I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
          > about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
          >
          > What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
          > one over the other for a given application?
          >
          > --Mac


          They use different, complementing strategies to fight spam. We currently run
          both of them (postscreen, greylisting) with great success.

          Another greylisting server that uses memcached as a backend and is written for
          postfix could be found here:
          https://github.com/luben/postfix-utils


          --
          Luben Karavelov
        • Noel Jones
          ... Please don t hijack threads. Start a new message instead of changing the subject of an existing message. Postgrey and postscreen do different things.
          Message 4 of 23 , May 1, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            postfixsm@...:
            > I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
            > about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
            >
            > What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
            > one over the other for a given application?
            >
            > --Mac

            Please don't hijack threads. Start a new message instead of
            changing the subject of an existing message.

            Postgrey and postscreen do different things. After you read up on
            them, you may want both.

            http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
            http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/



            -- Noel Jones
          • Postfix Support Mail
            Sorry about that. Reading the postscreen readme is what spawned the question. ## -----Original Message----- ## From: Noel Jones
            Message 5 of 23 , May 1, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry about that.

              Reading the postscreen readme is what spawned the question.

              ## >> -----Original Message-----
              ## >> From: Noel Jones [mailto:njones@...]
              ## >> Sent: Tuesday, 01 May, 2012 12:29
              ## >> To: postfix users; postfixsm@...
              ## >> Subject: Re: postgrey vs postscreen
              ## >>
              ## >> postfixsm@...:
              ## >> > I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me
              ## >> > thinking about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
              ## >> >
              ## >> > What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there
              ## >> > advantages of one over the other for a given application?
              ## >> >
              ## >> > --Mac
              ## >>
              ## >> Please don't hijack threads. Start a new message instead
              ## >> of changing the subject of an existing message.
              ## >>
              ## >> Postgrey and postscreen do different things. After you
              ## >> read up on them, you may want both.
              ## >>
              ## >> http://www.postfix.org/POSTSCREEN_README.html
              ## >> http://postgrey.schweikert.ch/
              ## >>
              ## >>
              ## >>
              ## >> -- Noel Jones
            • Wietse Venema
              Michael Tokarev: [using unix instead of fifo ] ... The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type (fifo or unix) can be a main.cf parameter setting (with an
              Message 6 of 23 , May 1, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                Michael Tokarev:
                [using "unix" instead of "fifo"]
                > And yes, I verified the socket code (instead of pipe code) on linux
                > a few days ago and it appears to work fine there too. So indeed, this
                > is a very good possibility too, but it does not cover solaris well.

                The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type (fifo or unix) can be a main.cf
                parameter setting (with an OS-dependent default value, e.g., fifo
                for Solaris and unix for everything else), and post-install can be
                updated to edit master.cf accordingly.

                This solves the "idle" mtime update problem a manner that is 100%
                maintainable. It involves adding one configuration parameter to
                main.cf, and adding a few lines to post-install that edit master.cf
                accordingly.

                > By default these dirs -- /var/spool/postfix/run/{pid,private,public} -
                > should be created at install time just like now these dirs are create
                > in /var/spool/postfix. The only change I'm asking about is to move
                > the "runtime" directories into a subdir (suggesting to name it "run"),
                > I don't ask to mount anything in there or to create these on boot.

                Sorry, that is not how Postfix is maintained.

                All aspects of Postfix are meant to be for general use, so that
                they are widely used, so that they can be routinely tested during
                development, so that they can be properly supported, and so that
                they don't break as Postfix evolves.

                Also, mounting stuff over Postfix directories breaks the basic model
                of how Postfix manages its files, and I definitely don't want some
                (Linux) distro maintainer to pick up on the idea. I have enough
                work on my hands to deal with damage control of (Linux) distro
                maintainers.

                [empty run directory]
                You seem to believe that Postfix IPC endpoints don't need to exist
                while Postfix is not running.

                > the mix -- pid, private, public -- the directories where the files
                > makes any sense at all till postfix is running _only_. Files in
                > there does not exist, so to say, when it is not running - even if
                > formally corresponding inodes do exist.

                That is incorrect.

                For example, the postdrop program will produce a warning message
                if the public/pickup node does not exist. By design this program
                MUST be able to run without errors while NO Postfix daemons are
                running. Normally, a missing public/pickup node is a sign of great
                trouble (mail would be queued forever) and it would therefore be
                wrong to shut up the error message.

                > [waiting for SSD to become a commodity product]

                An SSD has a write cycle limit of a million times or so. It should
                last forever with one mtime update per 5 minutes.

                Wietse
              • Michael Orlitzky
                ... If you enable the deep protocol tests, postscreen works pretty much like greylisting since it will 4xx any client that passes. When they reconnect, they
                Message 7 of 23 , May 1, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 05/01/2012 03:42 PM, Postfix Support Mail wrote:
                  > Sorry about that.
                  >
                  > Reading the postscreen readme is what spawned the question.
                  >

                  If you enable the deep protocol tests, postscreen works pretty much like
                  greylisting since it will 4xx any client that passes. When they
                  reconnect, they skip postscreen entirely; in effect, they've passed
                  greylisting.

                  Postgrey is a little more configurable (re: greylisting), and its
                  introduction is less intrusive than switching will be. If you have to
                  support older versions of postfix (sans postscreen), it also allows you
                  to consolidate your configurations.

                  On the other hand, I trust the postscreen code to be of the same
                  quality as the rest of postfix. Postscreen does provide some additional
                  anti-spam measures and reduces the load on your system. Finally, when
                  all's said and done, you've got one less[1] moving part to worry about.

                  Perhaps my favorite benefit is that with postscreen, we can afford the
                  resources to use a pre-queue content filter. Now senders get a rejection
                  if we e.g. detect a virus in their message. This greatly reduces the
                  amount of time I have to spend on the phone.

                  I would recommend switching eventually.


                  [1] Technically there are probably more, but let's say "logical" moving
                  parts.
                • Terry Barnum
                  ... Mac, I made the switch to postscreen about week ago. I used http://www.postfix.org/postscreen.8.html and /dev/rob0 s guide at
                  Message 8 of 23 , May 1, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On May 1, 2012, at 12:14 PM, Postfix Support Mail wrote:

                    > I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
                    > about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
                    >
                    > What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
                    > one over the other for a given application?
                    >
                    > --Mac

                    Mac,

                    I made the switch to postscreen about week ago. I used http://www.postfix.org/postscreen.8.html and /dev/rob0's guide at http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.mail.postfix.user/218114 and also turned on deep protocol tests. I have not done any empirical testing here but my impression is that it works at least as well as postgrey. I like that it's seamlessly integrated into postfix.

                    -Terry
                  • Robert Schetterer
                    ... depending on your setup, ( read postscreen readme.... ) you can combine them, specially if you use postgrey only selective which you should allready do yet
                    Message 9 of 23 , May 1, 2012
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Am 01.05.2012 21:14, schrieb Postfix Support Mail:
                      > I'm currently running postgrey, but a recent thread here got me thinking
                      > about postscreen, which I hadn't considered before.
                      >
                      > What are the pros and cons of one versus the other? Are there advantages of
                      > one over the other for a given application?
                      >
                      > --Mac
                      >
                      >

                      depending on your setup, ( read postscreen readme.... )
                      you can combine them, specially if you use postgrey only selective
                      which you should allready do yet

                      --
                      Best Regards

                      MfG Robert Schetterer

                      Germany/Munich/Bavaria
                    • Michael Tokarev
                      ... Maybe this is something which don t really need any configuration parameters, just pick up whatever is best on current OS, from prior knowlege. But
                      Message 10 of 23 , May 2, 2012
                      • 0 Attachment
                        02.05.2012 00:14, Wietse Venema wrote:
                        > Michael Tokarev:
                        > [using "unix" instead of "fifo"]
                        >> And yes, I verified the socket code (instead of pipe code) on linux
                        >> a few days ago and it appears to work fine there too. So indeed, this
                        >> is a very good possibility too, but it does not cover solaris well.
                        >
                        > The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type (fifo or unix) can be a main.cf
                        > parameter setting (with an OS-dependent default value, e.g., fifo
                        > for Solaris and unix for everything else), and post-install can be
                        > updated to edit master.cf accordingly.

                        Maybe this is something which don't really need any configuration
                        parameters, just pick up whatever is best on current OS, from prior
                        knowlege. But indeed, config parameter there will do the job, and
                        will even let us test easily if things have changed on solaris,
                        without a need to recompile postfix.

                        I'm a bit afraid of possible questions this change may generate
                        in the future, when people will start asking "what it is for,
                        why can't it be hardcoded" etc. :)

                        > This solves the "idle" mtime update problem a manner that is 100%
                        > maintainable. It involves adding one configuration parameter to
                        > main.cf, and adding a few lines to post-install that edit master.cf
                        > accordingly.

                        Yes, it should solve the idle mtime update issue. Hopefully unix
                        sockets does not have this problem -- at least on linux, mtime on
                        these isn't updated on write.

                        >> By default these dirs -- /var/spool/postfix/run/{pid,private,public} -
                        >> should be created at install time just like now these dirs are create
                        >> in /var/spool/postfix. The only change I'm asking about is to move
                        >> the "runtime" directories into a subdir (suggesting to name it "run"),
                        >> I don't ask to mount anything in there or to create these on boot.
                        >
                        > Sorry, that is not how Postfix is maintained.
                        >
                        > All aspects of Postfix are meant to be for general use, so that
                        > they are widely used, so that they can be routinely tested during
                        > development, so that they can be properly supported, and so that
                        > they don't break as Postfix evolves.

                        Renaming directories does not break this. But see below...

                        > Also, mounting stuff over Postfix directories breaks the basic model
                        > of how Postfix manages its files, and I definitely don't want some
                        > (Linux) distro maintainer to pick up on the idea. I have enough
                        > work on my hands to deal with damage control of (Linux) distro
                        > maintainers.

                        Well, I already suggested this to Debian - to mount /var/spool/postfix/run
                        and change pid, private and public dirs to be symlinks into subdirs
                        in run/ -- exactly how I manage it locally for many years.

                        Switching to unix sockets should eliminate the need for this.
                        But yet again, see below...

                        > [empty run directory]
                        > You seem to believe that Postfix IPC endpoints don't need to exist
                        > while Postfix is not running.
                        >
                        >> the mix -- pid, private, public -- the directories where the files
                        >> makes any sense at all till postfix is running _only_. Files in
                        >> there does not exist, so to say, when it is not running - even if
                        >> formally corresponding inodes do exist.
                        >
                        > That is incorrect.
                        >
                        > For example, the postdrop program will produce a warning message
                        > if the public/pickup node does not exist. By design this program
                        > MUST be able to run without errors while NO Postfix daemons are
                        > running. Normally, a missing public/pickup node is a sign of great
                        > trouble (mail would be queued forever) and it would therefore be
                        > wrong to shut up the error message.

                        Aha. And that's exactly what I overlooked. I didn't knw that in
                        case public/pickup is not present, postdrop will complain loudly.
                        Indeed, this is a serious enough reason to rethink the whole idea.
                        So I'll hold on with the mentioned changes for debian, I definitely
                        don't want to break postfix in any way.

                        Besides, the same issue (missing pickup node) exists when postfix
                        has been installed but hasn't been run even once. That one appears
                        to be of much less severity.

                        So, to sum it all up, it looks like the best solution will be to
                        switch to unix sockets, either with a config parameter or without.
                        In any way, I'd pick saner per-OS defaults for this, with sockets
                        for everything but solaris which will continue using fifos.

                        Thanks,

                        /mjt
                      • Wietse Venema
                        ... $ postconf -d|wc -l 920 No-one has complained sofar. ... Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do my best to prevent this from
                        Message 11 of 23 , May 2, 2012
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Michael Tokarev:
                          > > The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type (fifo or unix) can be a main.cf
                          > > parameter setting (with an OS-dependent default value, e.g., fifo
                          > > for Solaris and unix for everything else), and post-install can be
                          > > updated to edit master.cf accordingly.
                          >
                          > Maybe this is something which don't really need any configuration
                          > parameters, just pick up whatever is best on current OS, from prior
                          > knowlege. But indeed, config parameter there will do the job, and
                          > will even let us test easily if things have changed on solaris,
                          > without a need to recompile postfix.
                          >
                          > I'm a bit afraid of possible questions this change may generate
                          > in the future, when people will start asking "what it is for,
                          > why can't it be hardcoded" etc. :)

                          $ postconf -d|wc -l
                          920

                          No-one has complained sofar.

                          > > Also, mounting stuff over Postfix directories breaks the basic model
                          > > of how Postfix manages its files, and I definitely don't want some
                          > > (Linux) distro maintainer to pick up on the idea. I have enough
                          > > work on my hands to deal with damage control of (Linux) distro
                          > > maintainers.
                          >
                          > Well, I already suggested this to Debian - to mount /var/spool/postfix/run

                          Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do
                          my best to prevent this from happening, and if I find out that
                          they do it anyway, then I will raise hell and it won't be pretty.

                          Wietse
                        • Stan Hoeppner
                          ... To who at Debian? Lamont Jones? Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet? ... All of this nonsense because one guy on the planet feels he can t simply use
                          Message 12 of 23 , May 3, 2012
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On 5/2/2012 6:02 AM, Wietse Venema wrote:
                            > Michael Tokarev:
                            >>> The preferred pickup/qmgr IPC type (fifo or unix) can be a main.cf
                            >>> parameter setting (with an OS-dependent default value, e.g., fifo
                            >>> for Solaris and unix for everything else), and post-install can be
                            >>> updated to edit master.cf accordingly.
                            >>
                            >> Maybe this is something which don't really need any configuration
                            >> parameters, just pick up whatever is best on current OS, from prior
                            >> knowlege. But indeed, config parameter there will do the job, and
                            >> will even let us test easily if things have changed on solaris,
                            >> without a need to recompile postfix.
                            >>
                            >> I'm a bit afraid of possible questions this change may generate
                            >> in the future, when people will start asking "what it is for,
                            >> why can't it be hardcoded" etc. :)
                            >
                            > $ postconf -d|wc -l
                            > 920
                            >
                            > No-one has complained sofar.
                            >
                            >>> Also, mounting stuff over Postfix directories breaks the basic model
                            >>> of how Postfix manages its files, and I definitely don't want some
                            >>> (Linux) distro maintainer to pick up on the idea. I have enough
                            >>> work on my hands to deal with damage control of (Linux) distro
                            >>> maintainers.
                            >>
                            >> Well, I already suggested this to Debian - to mount /var/spool/postfix/run

                            To who at Debian? Lamont Jones? Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet?

                            > Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do
                            > my best to prevent this from happening, and if I find out that
                            > they do it anyway, then I will raise hell and it won't be pretty.

                            All of this nonsense because one guy on the planet feels he can't simply
                            use an MUA with submission like everyone else does, but demands he be
                            able to run an MTA on his damn desktop/laptop, and demands the default
                            MTA config allows him to do what he wants seamlessly, possibly to the
                            detriment of others, mainly the guy who wrote this MTA for your use in
                            the first place. At least that's my read of this thread.

                            --
                            Stan
                          • Viktor Dukhovni
                            ... Stan, please have the decency to not reflexively abuse others on this list, or otherwise leave. Michael, thanks for all your contributions over the years.
                            Message 13 of 23 , May 3, 2012
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 08:16:33AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

                              > Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet?

                              Stan, please have the decency to not reflexively abuse others on
                              this list, or otherwise leave.

                              Michael, thanks for all your contributions over the years.

                              The issue you raised here is a valid concern. It is however best
                              to avoid needless distribution-specific tweaks to Postfix, so it
                              would be best if issues are resolved on this list, rather than by
                              downstream maintainers, who may not always take all the consequences
                              into account. To pick on Debian for example, we have the Debian
                              OpenSSL random number fiasco...

                              --
                              Viktor.
                            • Michael Tokarev
                              On 03.05.2012 17:16, Stan Hoeppner wrote: [] ... Please refrain from using such words in public forum. Such usage makes you to be of that kind. ... Your read
                              Message 14 of 23 , May 3, 2012
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On 03.05.2012 17:16, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
                                []
                                > To who at Debian? Lamont Jones? Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet?

                                Please refrain from using such words in public forum.
                                Such usage makes you to be of that kind.

                                >> Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do
                                >> my best to prevent this from happening, and if I find out that
                                >> they do it anyway, then I will raise hell and it won't be pretty.
                                >
                                > All of this nonsense because one guy on the planet feels he can't simply
                                > use an MUA with submission like everyone else does, but demands he be
                                > able to run an MTA on his damn desktop/laptop, and demands the default
                                > MTA config allows him to do what he wants seamlessly, possibly to the
                                > detriment of others, mainly the guy who wrote this MTA for your use in
                                > the first place. At least that's my read of this thread.

                                Your read is incorrect. World is much larger than your imagination.

                                Thanks,

                                /mjt
                              • Wietse Venema
                                I already thanked Michael for his contributions in private email. Michael, does editing master.cf and s/fifo/unix/ solve the mtime file system updates problem?
                                Message 15 of 23 , May 3, 2012
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I already thanked Michael for his contributions in private email.

                                  Michael, does editing master.cf and s/fifo/unix/ solve the mtime
                                  file system updates problem? This is already supported by existing
                                  code, works on Linux and *BSD, and I can make a config parameter
                                  that makes this configurable with system-dependent defaults.

                                  If so, then we can avoid controversial changes, such as support to
                                  mount over a critical Postfix directory without Postfix's knowledge
                                  of such things happening.

                                  Wietse
                                • Stan Hoeppner
                                  ... My apologies for allowing my passion to transform into abrasiveness. ... Please (re)explain the use case you have in mind. It seemed to me the changes
                                  Message 16 of 23 , May 3, 2012
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 5/3/2012 8:48 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
                                    > On 03.05.2012 17:16, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
                                    > []
                                    >> To who at Debian? Lamont Jones? Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet?
                                    >
                                    > Please refrain from using such words in public forum.
                                    > Such usage makes you to be of that kind.

                                    My apologies for allowing my passion to transform into abrasiveness.

                                    >>> Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do
                                    >>> my best to prevent this from happening, and if I find out that
                                    >>> they do it anyway, then I will raise hell and it won't be pretty.
                                    >>
                                    >> All of this nonsense because one guy on the planet feels he can't simply
                                    >> use an MUA with submission like everyone else does, but demands he be
                                    >> able to run an MTA on his damn desktop/laptop, and demands the default
                                    >> MTA config allows him to do what he wants seamlessly, possibly to the
                                    >> detriment of others, mainly the guy who wrote this MTA for your use in
                                    >> the first place. At least that's my read of this thread.
                                    >
                                    > Your read is incorrect. World is much larger than your imagination.

                                    Please (re)explain the use case you have in mind. It seemed to me the
                                    changes you're proposing will have a positive effect, immediately
                                    anyway, for only a very small subset of Postfix users, for a niche
                                    configuration.

                                    This request seems very similar to one made on the XFS list not all that
                                    long ago. A user with a home theater PC and a single large WD Green
                                    drive was irked that the drive wouldn't stay asleep for more than 30
                                    seconds. He debugged it himself, and found a long standing XFS behavior
                                    of accessing the journal or filesystem superblock every 30s IIRC. He
                                    said this wasn't necessary and pleaded with the devs to change this
                                    behavior, just so his HTPC drive could sleep. XFS was never intended
                                    for such a setup, this behavior existing since ~1994/95. The average
                                    XFS setup is a server with a dozen to a few hundred or more drives in
                                    hardware RAID running 24x7--no sleeping. An SGI employee mentioned just
                                    a couple of weeks ago working with a single XFS filesystem spaning 600
                                    drives in an IS16000 array. Not your average XFS drive count, but it is
                                    a typical large XFS configuration, and quite a contrast from a single
                                    drive HTPC server in a living room.

                                    IIRC a patch was eventually developed after many months, when it was
                                    determined there was likely no downside, and mainlined after much
                                    regression testing and tweaking. All for the benefit of very very few
                                    non-typical XFS users.

                                    Anyway, I see this as a similar case, and a similar waste of resources
                                    expended for the benefit of very few users, when there is nothing
                                    inherently "wrong" with the current Postfix implementation, as far as I
                                    understand the request. Maybe I simply don't fully understand the issue
                                    and the potential benefits yet.

                                    --
                                    Stan
                                  • john
                                    I do not see where Stan was abusive. Abrasive maybe, but then sometimes bumps on logs need sanding down this would appear to be one of those occasions.
                                    Message 17 of 23 , May 3, 2012
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I do not see where Stan was abusive.
                                      Abrasive maybe, but then sometimes bumps on logs need sanding down this
                                      would appear to be one of those occasions.

                                      On 03/05/2012 11:29 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
                                      > On 5/3/2012 8:48 AM, Michael Tokarev wrote:
                                      >> On 03.05.2012 17:16, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
                                      >> []
                                      >>> To who at Debian? Lamont Jones? Has he replied to your idiotic idea yet?
                                      >> Please refrain from using such words in public forum.
                                      >> Such usage makes you to be of that kind.
                                      > My apologies for allowing my passion to transform into abrasiveness.
                                      >
                                      >>>> Thank you for making my worst nightmares come true. I will do
                                      >>>> my best to prevent this from happening, and if I find out that
                                      >>>> they do it anyway, then I will raise hell and it won't be pretty.
                                      >>> All of this nonsense because one guy on the planet feels he can't simply
                                      >>> use an MUA with submission like everyone else does, but demands he be
                                      >>> able to run an MTA on his damn desktop/laptop, and demands the default
                                      >>> MTA config allows him to do what he wants seamlessly, possibly to the
                                      >>> detriment of others, mainly the guy who wrote this MTA for your use in
                                      >>> the first place. At least that's my read of this thread.
                                      >> Your read is incorrect. World is much larger than your imagination.
                                      > Please (re)explain the use case you have in mind. It seemed to me the
                                      > changes you're proposing will have a positive effect, immediately
                                      > anyway, for only a very small subset of Postfix users, for a niche
                                      > configuration.
                                      >
                                      > This request seems very similar to one made on the XFS list not all that
                                      > long ago. A user with a home theater PC and a single large WD Green
                                      > drive was irked that the drive wouldn't stay asleep for more than 30
                                      > seconds. He debugged it himself, and found a long standing XFS behavior
                                      > of accessing the journal or filesystem superblock every 30s IIRC. He
                                      > said this wasn't necessary and pleaded with the devs to change this
                                      > behavior, just so his HTPC drive could sleep. XFS was never intended
                                      > for such a setup, this behavior existing since ~1994/95. The average
                                      > XFS setup is a server with a dozen to a few hundred or more drives in
                                      > hardware RAID running 24x7--no sleeping. An SGI employee mentioned just
                                      > a couple of weeks ago working with a single XFS filesystem spaning 600
                                      > drives in an IS16000 array. Not your average XFS drive count, but it is
                                      > a typical large XFS configuration, and quite a contrast from a single
                                      > drive HTPC server in a living room.
                                      >
                                      > IIRC a patch was eventually developed after many months, when it was
                                      > determined there was likely no downside, and mainlined after much
                                      > regression testing and tweaking. All for the benefit of very very few
                                      > non-typical XFS users.
                                      >
                                      > Anyway, I see this as a similar case, and a similar waste of resources
                                      > expended for the benefit of very few users, when there is nothing
                                      > inherently "wrong" with the current Postfix implementation, as far as I
                                      > understand the request. Maybe I simply don't fully understand the issue
                                      > and the potential benefits yet.
                                      >
                                    • Stan Hoeppner
                                      On 5/3/2012 6:54 PM, Bill Cole wrote: ... This could be completely resolved by PXE/bootp and NFS mounted root filesystems, and save you $200-500/node in disk
                                      Message 18 of 23 , May 4, 2012
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On 5/3/2012 6:54 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
                                        ...
                                        > For many of these systems,
                                        > the OS resides on a mirrored pair of local disks which see very
                                        > infrequent writes because every filesystem with significant flux is
                                        > physically resident across the SAN. Spinning disks draw power. Anything
                                        > drawing power generates heat. Heat requires cooling. Cooling typically
                                        > requires more power than the devices it is compensating for. Cooling
                                        > also requires careful attention to the details of physical server
                                        > density and rack design and so on...

                                        This could be completely resolved by PXE/bootp and NFS mounted root
                                        filesystems, and save you $200-500/node in disk drive costs after
                                        spending $1000-2000 for the NFS server hardware, or nothing using a VM
                                        server. It would also save you substantial admin time by using
                                        templates for new node deployments. This diskless node methodology has
                                        been around for ~30 years.

                                        > A local mail submission and trivial outbound transport subsystem is a
                                        > normal feature of any Unix-like machine. To operate robustly, it needs a
                                        > queueing and retry mechanism. It is helpful for environments with power
                                        > and cooling concerns if a mechanical disk (or worse: a mirrored pair of
                                        > disks) isn't forced to spin up every time that mechanism activates.
                                        > Every little wattage savings is useful, and avoiding truly pointless
                                        > disk writes is never a bad thing.

                                        SSD is a perfect solution here, in cases of non netboot machines. And
                                        right now small SSDs are less expensive than their rusty disk
                                        counterparts. If one is truly concerned about spurious spin ups eating
                                        power and generating heat, I would think one would not go after the
                                        software stack in a piecemeal fashion to solve the problem. The MTA
                                        isn't the only software waking the disk. The kernel will write logs far
                                        more often in many/most situations.

                                        > Well, beyond the data center environment there is also a very widespread
                                        > deployment of Postfix as the legacy mail subsystem on MacOS personal
                                        > machines, where the mail flow is typically extremely low.
                                        ...
                                        > Ultimately the result is having to choose
                                        > between power management and timely delivery. If the periodic wakeups
                                        > didn't force a disk write, it would be less onerous to let master run in
                                        > its normal persistent mode for a lot of Postfix users (many of whom may
                                        > not even be aware that they are Postfix users.)

                                        This is only true if two things persist into the future:

                                        1. Postfix isn't modified in order to perform a power management role
                                        2. Laptops will forever have spinning rust storage

                                        Addressing the first point, should it be the responsibility of
                                        application software to directly address power management concerns? Or
                                        should this be left to the OS and hardware platform/BIOS?

                                        Addressing the 2nd, within a few years all new laptops will ship with
                                        SSD instead of SRD specifically to address battery run time
                                        issues. Many are shipping now with SSDs. All netbooks already do,
                                        smart phones use other flash types.

                                        > Whether it is actually worthwhile to make a change that is only
                                        > significant for people who are barely using Postfix isn't a judgment I
                                        > can make. It's obvious that Dr. Venema takes significantly more care
                                        > with his code than I can really relate to, so I don't really know what
                                        > effort a conceptually small change in Postfix really entails.

                                        Wietse will make his own decisions as he always has.

                                        I'm simply making the point that issues such as power/cooling,
                                        wake/sleep, etc should be addressed at the hardware platform/OS level,
                                        or system or network architecture level, at the application level,
                                        especially if the effort to implement it is more than trivial.

                                        This is especially true when any such coding effort may only produce
                                        very short term gains, as these issues are already being addressed and
                                        will be completely resolved by other means (SSD) in the near
                                        future, or have already been resolved by 30 year old
                                        technology/architecture methods (netboot/NFS), depending on the platform
                                        scenario.

                                        --
                                        Stan
                                      • Bill Cole
                                        ... Yes, it is possible to fundamentally re-architect working environments that have been organically developed over years by adding significant new
                                        Message 19 of 23 , May 4, 2012
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          On 4 May 2012, at 17:00, Stan Hoeppner wrote:

                                          > On 5/3/2012 6:54 PM, Bill Cole wrote:
                                          > ...
                                          >> For many of these systems,
                                          >> the OS resides on a mirrored pair of local disks which see very
                                          >> infrequent writes because every filesystem with significant flux is
                                          >> physically resident across the SAN. Spinning disks draw power.
                                          >> Anything
                                          >> drawing power generates heat. Heat requires cooling. Cooling
                                          >> typically
                                          >> requires more power than the devices it is compensating for. Cooling
                                          >> also requires careful attention to the details of physical server
                                          >> density and rack design and so on...
                                          >
                                          > This could be completely resolved by PXE/bootp and NFS mounted root
                                          > filesystems, and save you $200-500/node in disk drive costs after
                                          > spending $1000-2000 for the NFS server hardware, or nothing using a VM
                                          > server. It would also save you substantial admin time by using
                                          > templates for new node deployments. This diskless node methodology
                                          > has
                                          > been around for ~30 years.

                                          Yes, it is possible to fundamentally re-architect working environments
                                          that have been "organically" developed over years by adding significant
                                          new infrastructure to save on capital costs of hypothetical growth and
                                          maybe on future admin time. The idea that a server in the $1000-$2000
                                          range would be part of a global conversion to diskless servers or even
                                          the largest capital cost of such a project reveals that I failed to
                                          communicate an accurate understanding of the environment, but that's not
                                          terribly important. There's no shortage of well-informed well-developed
                                          specific proposals for comprehensive infrastructure overhaul, and in the
                                          interim between now and the distant never when one of those meets up
                                          with a winning lottery ticket and an unutilized skilled head or three, I
                                          have sufficient workarounds in place.

                                          I didn't mention that environment seeking a solution, but rather to
                                          point out that there are real-world systems that take advantage of the
                                          power management capabilities of modern disks and have nothing else in
                                          common with the average personal system. I think that was responsive to
                                          the paragraph of yours that I originally quoted. It's easy to come up
                                          with flippant advice for others to spend time and money to replace
                                          stable working systems, but it is also irrelevant and a bit rude.

                                          [...]
                                          >> Ultimately the result is having to choose
                                          >> between power management and timely delivery. If the periodic wakeups
                                          >> didn't force a disk write, it would be less onerous to let master run
                                          >> in
                                          >> its normal persistent mode for a lot of Postfix users (many of whom
                                          >> may
                                          >> not even be aware that they are Postfix users.)
                                          >
                                          > This is only true if two things persist into the future:
                                          >
                                          > 1. Postfix isn't modified in order to perform a power management role

                                          No reason for it to "perform" but it would be nice for it to "stop
                                          thwarting."

                                          > 2. Laptops will forever have spinning rust storage

                                          Who said anything about laptops?

                                          > Addressing the first point, should it be the responsibility of
                                          > application software to directly address power management concerns?
                                          > Or
                                          > should this be left to the OS and hardware platform/BIOS?

                                          Applications should not do things that are actively hostile to
                                          housekeeping functions of lower-level software (in this case: drive
                                          firmware) without a functional justification. It's not wrong for a
                                          filesystem to change the mtime on a pipe with every write to it, nor is
                                          it wrong for a filesystem to commit every change in a timely manner.
                                          This is not really fixable at a lower level without eliminating the
                                          hardware in question or making changes to filesystem software that could
                                          cause wide-ranging problems with other software.

                                          > Addressing the 2nd, within a few years all new laptops will ship with
                                          > SSD instead of SRD specifically to address battery run time
                                          > issues. Many are shipping now with SSDs. All netbooks already do,
                                          > smart phones use other flash types.

                                          This is not about laptops. Really.

                                          Systems can live a long time without drive replacements. Spinning rust
                                          with power management firmware is not going to be rare in running
                                          systems until at least 5 years after dependable & fast SSD's hit $1/GB
                                          for devices larger than 100GB. Of course, those drives may die out a lot
                                          faster where applications do periodic pointless writes that keep them
                                          running continuously.

                                          Note that the reason this issue exists *AT ALL* is to work around a bug
                                          in Solaris 2.4. I spent most of the last 14 years working mostly on
                                          Solaris systems in change-averse places and the last time I saw Solaris
                                          2.4 was 1999. I don't have the details of the bug or the free time to
                                          rig up a test system to prove it gone in whatever version Postfix needs
                                          to work on today, but I have no gripe with that relatively ancient and
                                          *likely* inoperative history being the blocking issue. I hope someone
                                          else can settle the issue. An argument that time will soon make this fix
                                          pointless is a bit ironic.


                                          >> Whether it is actually worthwhile to make a change that is only
                                          >> significant for people who are barely using Postfix isn't a judgment
                                          >> I
                                          >> can make. It's obvious that Dr. Venema takes significantly more care
                                          >> with his code than I can really relate to, so I don't really know
                                          >> what
                                          >> effort a conceptually small change in Postfix really entails.
                                          >
                                          > Wietse will make his own decisions as he always has.
                                          >
                                          > I'm simply making the point that issues such as power/cooling,
                                          > wake/sleep, etc should be addressed at the hardware platform/OS level,
                                          > or system or network architecture level, at the application level,
                                          > especially if the effort to implement it is more than trivial.

                                          See his discussion of the details. The code exists, what remains is the
                                          harder work of testing and getting all the defaults right.


                                          P.S.: Note that I have respected with your Reply-To header. Please
                                          return that courtesy.
                                        • Reindl Harald
                                          ... but only if you do not permanently spin them up and down power managment is the dead of a drive i have here disks with 35.000 uptime you can be sure with
                                          Message 20 of 23 , May 4, 2012
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Am 05.05.2012 03:05, schrieb Bill Cole:
                                            > Systems can live a long time without drive replacements.

                                            but only if you do not permanently spin them up and down
                                            power managment is the dead of a drive

                                            i have here disks with > 35.000 uptime
                                            you can be sure with "power-managment" they
                                            would still be dead

                                            try it out: spin down a drive running some years
                                            and you have a real good change that the next
                                            spin up is the final one

                                            > Spinning rust with power management firmware is not going
                                            > to be rare in running systems until at least 5 years

                                            and should be the first to get disabled in the real world

                                            the power you save in spin down a disk is meaningless
                                            in any way, the power for produce a new drive because yours
                                            died by permanently spin up/down is much higher and the cost
                                            of the new drive also compared with let the drive run
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.