Connect. Communicate. Collaborate. Securely.

Home » Kerio User Forums » Kerio Connect » Can Kerio support over 4Gb of memory?
  •  
nbgrant

Messages: 49
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
We're running a x86_64 Centos 5 and currently have 4Gb of memory and are looking at upgrading to 15K SAS drives (probably in a RAID10) and have an 8Gb memory kit to install...

I just got to thinking though, can Kerio address more than 4Gb of memory?

Even if not, the OS will benefit from more - it is running a small VM for a web server though that will be leaving soon.

While I'm thinking about it, anyone have an experience putting KMS on 15K SAS drives? I'm guessing it's awesome!?! Smile
  •  
My IT Indy

Messages: 1262
Karma: 40
Send a private message to this user
How many users would you have on the server? I've never seen KMS need or use anywhere near that much memory by itself. The 15K SAS drives will be wonderful however.

-
My IT Indy
Kerio Certified Reseller and Hosted Provider
http://www.myitindy.com
  •  
nbgrant

Messages: 49
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
I suppose that's true. Our KMS is hosting about 100 users with another domain of about 15 coming on next month. With the current setup we're using about 1Gb of memory at any given time.

The VM is taking up another gig and the system (rsync backup mostly) is taking up another gig so we're generally hovering around 75% memory usage. Obviously our main goal is to change this system to a KMV server only and dump that VM. The original goal for this hardware last year was hosting about 20-40 users and doing some web with the VM, but with the iPhone, Apple and KMS doing so well we've changed its focus.

Any personal experience with 15K SAS drives Hoosier?
  •  
winkelman

Messages: 2119
Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
I went from a RAID-1 SATA 7200 rpm to a RAID-1 SCSI 15k rpm setup (with all other hardware staying the same) and the KMS performance increase was tremendous. This was many years ago though...

As you can read left and right on this forum, experienced KMS users will tell you KMS speed is almost solely depending on disk subsystem speed. KMS can do with 'old' CPU's, little RAM, etc., all that doesn't really matter. Buying the fastest disks money can buy does however! Smile

Go for RAID-10 or, if you can't place/afford 4 (or more) drives use RAID-1. Do not use RAID-5/6, it is slower in writes. And I would love to see it running on SSD's, that must really fly! Can't afford that myself though... Smile
  •  
marook

Messages: 520

Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
We host 300 users on OS X 10.6, and Kerio 'mailserver' process uses under 200MB of RAM... normally around 180MB.
CPU usage is normally 10-20% on an XServe:

Processor Name: Dual-Core Intel Xeon
Processor Speed: 3 GHz
Number Of Processors: 2
Total Number Of Cores: 4

Regards,

Jakob Peterhänsel
Consultant - Humac A/S

Apple Certified Support Professional (ACSP)
Apple Certified Technical Coordinator (ACTC)
AppleSeed/CQF member since 1998
Kerio Messaging Partner
  •  
hbianchi

Messages: 121
Karma: 8
Send a private message to this user
I moved from 4x320GB 7200 rpm RAID 5 SATA, to a 4x300GB 15000 rpm RAID 5 SAS array and performance changed a lot: GREAT. I could not go to a RAID 10 structure because of storage need and number of server bays I have. (and 450 GB SAS 15k drives, are too new and too expensive yet). I leave moving to a RAID 10 array when I were able to move to a box with more bays. SO, SAS raid work great, but this will be for a while: SAS drives are not as big as SATA and thay are more expensive, so: I still think that Kerio should begin thinking in new ways to storage messages, with better performance (full database with cache management, and indexing, and other advantages should be considered).
  •  
hbianchi

Messages: 121
Karma: 8
Send a private message to this user
And about the 4GB memory or more: no matter KMS seem not to need it, I think that Kerio shoul have a product to take full advantage of 64 bits processors. Perhaps, different modules, should work as separate programs: mailserver, smtp module, storage, antispam module, in order to use all processors and all memory.
  •  
nbgrant

Messages: 49
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
hbianchi wrote on Tue, 02 February 2010 08:12
And about the 4GB memory or more: no matter KMS seem not to need it, I think that Kerio shoul have a product to take full advantage of 64 bits processors. Perhaps, different modules, should work as separate programs: mailserver, smtp module, storage, antispam module, in order to use all processors and all memory.

I think this makes perfect sense. I wonder if we'll see that in KC7...haven't had time to test it out yet. This is how Zimbra is structured from my understanding.

We are running a dual core 64-bit system on a 64-bit OS, but a software RAID1 for the boot drives and a software RAID5 for the /opt mount. I'd really love to move our 7200's to all boot in a hardware configuration and then add 4 2.5" 15K SAS drives for the /opt

We are still running with 4GB of memory...board wouldn't take more and our KMS is rarely over 3GB. Our CPU is generally sitting around 20-30% with 100 users (all iPhone, all Mac with mixed iCal/Mail & Entourage setup).

Has anyone timed a mkfile or dd of a 100MB file w/ RAID5 in 7200 and RAID10 with 15K? I'd love to see the difference.
  •  
winkelman

Messages: 2119
Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
It's not that simple: KMS not being different 'modules' (you mean processes I guess?) says absolutely nothing about it not being multi-threaded. I just checked my mailserver.exe process is actually running 59 threads. I guess you do not have a 59 core server? Wink Furthermore, spam checking and AV checking are already running in their own process. So there is absolutely no need in splitting up KMS in more 'modules'.

Then: there's absolutely no need for 64-bit processing, if a) you server in total doesn't actually use (or could use) more then about 3.2Gb and b) you application wouldn't benefit from a single process allocating more then 2Gb and c) your application doesn't require a lot of 64-bit float or integer processing. As KMS doesn't need any of these things, there is no real reason justifying the development hours of migrating the whole thing to 64-bit. The developers are much better used developing other things. Certainly taking into account you can run the (32-bit) KMS just fine on a 64-bit server. With no downsides whatsoever.

  •  
winkelman

Messages: 2119
Karma: 3
Send a private message to this user
Oh, and this: testing mkfile speeds will not tell you a lot about KMS performance. Manipulating large files would give you an indication of throughput. However, KMS is about concurrently manipulating lots a lots of small files, so latency is a much bigger influence then throughput.

If you want to benchmark hard drives as an indication of KMS performance, you should test for heavy concurrent small reads and writes, not throughput.
  •  
yellowpants

Messages: 3
Karma: 0
Send a private message to this user
1) Kerio doesn't use more than 2G of RAM in my experience. It will crash at about that point if it needs more memory. I wouldn't spend any more money on memory if you have 4G at this point, unless you want it to increase your disk cache.

2) Kerio is multi-threaded (at least my core files think so)

3) Disk performance improvements are going to be a BIG win. The reason you don't want RAID5 is the same reason that writing / reading a 100M file isn't a good test. If you write a 4k file (an average email) to a n disk RAID5 array with a rational stripe size (4k or greater), your system will wind up (best case) reading from n-2 disks to figure out what parity it needs to write, and only then writing to the other two disks to update data and parity.

RAID level 1 lets you just do the write (sure you still have to hit multiple disks, but you don't have to pay the latency of a read first). Combining it with RAID 0 for a RAID 10 array means you get the speed benefit of each one of your disks for bulk reads (backups anyone?) and concurrent I/O and still only have to write to two disks to save / update a small file.
Previous Topic: share tasks
Next Topic: forwarding email to internet email addresses
Goto Forum:
  


Disclaimer:
Kerio discussion forums are intended for open communication between forum members and may contain information and material posted by members which may be useful in learning about Kerio products. The discussion forums are not intended to provide technical support for any specific product. Any information implied or expressed in the discussion forums is that of the posting member. Kerio is in no way responsible for the information posted in the forums, or its accuracy. Kerio employees may participate in the discussions, but their postings do not represent an offical position of the company on any issues raised or discussed. Kerio reserves the right to monitor and maintain the forums to promote free and accurate exchange of information.

Current Time: Sat Oct 21 21:24:05 CEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00454 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.
Powered by: FUDforum 3.0.4.