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

Re: postgrey vs postscreen

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 23 , May 1 4:29 PM
    • 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 2 of 23 , May 1 5:04 PM
      • 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 3 of 23 , May 1 11:00 PM
        • 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 4 of 23 , May 2 3:12 AM
          • 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 5 of 23 , May 2 4:02 AM
            • 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 6 of 23 , May 3 6:16 AM
              • 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 7 of 23 , May 3 6:39 AM
                • 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 8 of 23 , May 3 6:48 AM
                  • 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 9 of 23 , May 3 7:44 AM
                    • 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 10 of 23 , May 3 8:29 AM
                      • 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 11 of 23 , May 3 2:29 PM
                        • 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 12 of 23 , May 4 2:00 PM
                          • 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 13 of 23 , May 4 6:05 PM
                            • 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 14 of 23 , May 4 11:30 PM
                              • 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.