On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:34:58PM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:10:42PM +0200, Eric Persson wrote: > > > I'm looking to improve the performance on one of our imap-servers > > since its getting slow on large folders with 100k or more files in > > I'm not sure this is as true as it used to be, especially if you're > using ext3 with dir_index enabled. Still, XFS is highly optimized for > large files/directories, and my empirical experience is that it is the > best overall filesystem unless one has special considerations such as > full-data journaling or RAM/CPU constraints.
There has alway been talk that if you use xfs make sure you have a ups
as well.
I use XFS, like it for my large partitions and I have a ups
>
> > However, I read that reiserfs was more efficient than ext3 handling
> > lots of small files, which sounds like a good choice for this
>
> ReiserFS is more efficient at handling small files because of
> tail-packing, but you sometimes pay for that space efficiency with speed
> as reiserfs3 does a lot of continuous shuffling of its hash tree. I've
> also found reiserfs3 to be less reliable on my systems when compared to
> XFS. YMMV.
>
> --
> "Oh, look: rocks!"
> -- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
"I was raised in the West. The West of Texas. It's pretty close to California.
In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California. "
- George W. Bush
04/08/2000
Los Angeles, CA
in Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
