Sadly, this webpage considers my normal browser "outdated" (my safari is very up to date thank you), my other browser is vivaldi and also blocked, archive.org is blocked and ghostarchive is blocked and archive.is is also blocked, so the thoughts of the author will forever elude me.
Though presuming from the title, the amount of RAM in a server is IMO still the important metric. Rarely do I run into CPU starvation on my workloads (for about 6TB of traffic a month), but I always have to fight the ever growing need for more RAM in the many many services that need to execute for my stuff (elasticsearch is the worst at it, followed generally by any java based application and then .NET and then the remainder).
You didn't miss much, the post was a long winded way of saying, "I almost over-provisioned a mail server because I forgot to check the actual memory usage of the old one first."
I don't think it's nice to compare someone's personal blog to that? I wouldn't want to fear getting compared to an llm just because my blog once had something interesting and some time later my personal ramblings got submitted.
Plus firefox and safari on macos are fine for me. I bet you're just IP blocked, welcome to the sad reality of modern day Anti-Scraper wars, you're sadly a casualty. Oh and before someone shouts: I've worked in a lab before - if someone decides all content of all faculties is now gated behind some bespoke WAF, that is what happens, end of story.
Hm.. the page opens fine for me both in safari and chrome, but this blog might be too aggressive about what it thinks is a "bot". This post is mainly about his mail server setup and workloads that haven't changed in years. My experience is similar, my personal server uses about 600MB of 4GB, and two thirds of that is rspamd. Of course, java applications udner load are a different story.
I have a tendency to plan based on the idea that servers may end up being thousands of miles from me, so there's always value in having too much of something than too little. Until recently, it was easy to set up machines with 32, 64 or 128 gigs, with 16TB drives instead of 8TB, and so on.
These days, with prices of computing goods being what they are, it doesn't make sense to do that, so a reminder that we should, you know, check usage to see how much stuff we need is a good one.
I have a first edition of the O'Reilly sendmail bat book from 1993. There's quite a lot of discussion in it about how to maximize the resources you have, which is heavily trimmed in later editions. It's worth it for everyone to learn those lessons, because you never know when an evil cabal of oligarchs will capture the world's production of integrated circuits and drive prices up to insane amounts.
cultpony | a day ago
Sadly, this webpage considers my normal browser "outdated" (my safari is very up to date thank you), my other browser is vivaldi and also blocked, archive.org is blocked and ghostarchive is blocked and archive.is is also blocked, so the thoughts of the author will forever elude me.
Though presuming from the title, the amount of RAM in a server is IMO still the important metric. Rarely do I run into CPU starvation on my workloads (for about 6TB of traffic a month), but I always have to fight the ever growing need for more RAM in the many many services that need to execute for my stuff (elasticsearch is the worst at it, followed generally by any java based application and then .NET and then the remainder).
bityard | a day ago
You didn't miss much, the post was a long winded way of saying, "I almost over-provisioned a mail server because I forgot to check the actual memory usage of the old one first."
calvin | a day ago
The bigger question is why your mail server runs on dedicated hardware with multiple gigabytes of RAM to begin with.
jamesnvc | 21 hours ago
Because it’s the mail server for CS department of the largest university in Canada would be my guess.
aae | a day ago
I was starting to wonder if it was me that noticed the same point was repeated like 4 times. Felt like reading an smaller LM's reasoning output.
proctrap | a day ago
I don't think it's nice to compare someone's personal blog to that? I wouldn't want to fear getting compared to an llm just because my blog once had something interesting and some time later my personal ramblings got submitted.
Plus firefox and safari on macos are fine for me. I bet you're just IP blocked, welcome to the sad reality of modern day Anti-Scraper wars, you're sadly a casualty. Oh and before someone shouts: I've worked in a lab before - if someone decides all content of all faculties is now gated behind some bespoke WAF, that is what happens, end of story.
chrismorgan | 13 hours ago
All kinds of dodgy user-agent string detection. It blocks Firefox for Android normally:
But not in desktop mode:
[OP] davidklassen | a day ago
Hm.. the page opens fine for me both in safari and chrome, but this blog might be too aggressive about what it thinks is a "bot". This post is mainly about his mail server setup and workloads that haven't changed in years. My experience is similar, my personal server uses about 600MB of 4GB, and two thirds of that is rspamd. Of course, java applications udner load are a different story.
jackdk | 19 hours ago
It also put my normal browser behind a VPN in the same bucket as bots and crawlers and refused to show me a page.
johnklos | 19 hours ago
I have a tendency to plan based on the idea that servers may end up being thousands of miles from me, so there's always value in having too much of something than too little. Until recently, it was easy to set up machines with 32, 64 or 128 gigs, with 16TB drives instead of 8TB, and so on.
These days, with prices of computing goods being what they are, it doesn't make sense to do that, so a reminder that we should, you know, check usage to see how much stuff we need is a good one.
I have a first edition of the O'Reilly sendmail bat book from 1993. There's quite a lot of discussion in it about how to maximize the resources you have, which is heavily trimmed in later editions. It's worth it for everyone to learn those lessons, because you never know when an evil cabal of oligarchs will capture the world's production of integrated circuits and drive prices up to insane amounts.