Some Questions about Cyrus Agregattion ( Murder )
morgan at orst.edu
Tue Jun 22 13:48:51 EDT 2010
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Lucas Zinato Carraro wrote:
> Thanks for all answers,
> " As Wes points out, proxyd process churn is relatively expensive."
> Any metric to "sizing" a solution ?
> ex: proxyd memory and cpu by connection
> I expect "20.000" simultaneous connections in frontends ( 3 or 5 machines )
> 10.000 using IMAPs and 10.000 using IMAP.
> An maximum attachment set to 10 Mb.
We have 3 frontend servers here, each with 2 dual-core AMD 280 cpus and
4GB of RAM.
Our peak usage was about 4500 proxyd processes (1500 per server). These
are a mix of IMAP and IMAPS (I don't know the breakdown). During those
peak times, the load average was around 0.6 to 0.8. Right now there are
800 proxyd processes consuming about 1GB of RAM. There is almost zero
memory used by proxyd that is not shared memory.
If I had to guess at the peak capacity of my frontend servers, I'd say we
could handle about 2000 proxyd processes each.
Today, you could buy an 8 core, 8GB server and handle double the number of
processes. For your requirements, I'd buy 5 or 6 of those servers.
More information about the Info-cyrus