PHWinfo - Afficher un message - UW imap-2006b: 64 bit problem

13/10/2006, 18h55

On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Willi Burmeister wrote:
> >I do not have easy access to a Solaris system, and there's a long history
> >of Solaris being troublesome to support.
> why?

I don't want to go into detail; this newsgroup is not the appropriate
place for Solaris-bashing. Suffice it to say that Solaris has a long
history of incompatibility with other UNIX-like systems and with other
versions of Solaris.

> >Solaris is SVR4 based, which is
> >not a recommended platform due to its deficiencies
> what deficiencies?

The deficiencies impact performance and reliability. I know of sites that
have fixed their IMAP performance problems simply by replacing SVR4 based
systems with (less expensive!) Linux systems.

SVR4 only has POSIX style fcntl() locking. The BSD man pages call the
semantics of POSIX locking "completely stupid"; I don't disagree. I have
quoted the relevant paragraph from the BSD man page many times already; I
hope that I don't have to do so again. UW imapd is obliged to do
considerable more work on SVR4 systems than it does on BSD and Linux
systems which offer flock() locking as an alternative to POSIX locking.

Many (most?) SVR4 filesystems are poor performers compared to BSD and
Linux filesystems.

I do not recommend Solaris, or any other SVR4 based system (AIX, HP-UX,
etc.) as a platform for an IMAP server. This is not just for UW imapd.
Linux and BSD are more suitable platforms for other IMAP server
implementations as well. Other IMAP server implementations may not be as
severely impacted by the choice of SVR4; but I can't imagine any IMAP
server implementation performing better on SVR4 than on Linux or BSD.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.

13/10/2006, 18h55	#7
Mark Crispin Messages: n/a Hébergeur:	Re: UW imap-2006b: 64 bit problem On Fri, 13 Oct 2006, Willi Burmeister wrote: > >I do not have easy access to a Solaris system, and there's a long history > >of Solaris being troublesome to support. > why? I don't want to go into detail; this newsgroup is not the appropriate place for Solaris-bashing. Suffice it to say that Solaris has a long history of incompatibility with other UNIX-like systems and with other versions of Solaris. > >Solaris is SVR4 based, which is > >not a recommended platform due to its deficiencies > what deficiencies? The deficiencies impact performance and reliability. I know of sites that have fixed their IMAP performance problems simply by replacing SVR4 based systems with (less expensive!) Linux systems. SVR4 only has POSIX style fcntl() locking. The BSD man pages call the semantics of POSIX locking "completely stupid"; I don't disagree. I have quoted the relevant paragraph from the BSD man page many times already; I hope that I don't have to do so again. UW imapd is obliged to do considerable more work on SVR4 systems than it does on BSD and Linux systems which offer flock() locking as an alternative to POSIX locking. Many (most?) SVR4 filesystems are poor performers compared to BSD and Linux filesystems. I do not recommend Solaris, or any other SVR4 based system (AIX, HP-UX, etc.) as a platform for an IMAP server. This is not just for UW imapd. Linux and BSD are more suitable platforms for other IMAP server implementations as well. Other IMAP server implementations may not be as severely impacted by the choice of SVR4; but I can't imagine any IMAP server implementation performing better on SVR4 than on Linux or BSD. -- Mark -- http://panda.com/mrc Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.