On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 04:13:17PM -0700, Bob Miller wrote: > Larry Price wrote: > > > We have an argument going here in the office regarding how to spec a > > storage array for a high volume, low-latency production server that > > would need to hold and serve approximately 1-3 TB of maildirs > > Is the requirement to use maildir format nonnegotiable? For many/most > workloads, I'd expect mbox format to run quite a bit faster. If I > were you, I'd certainly spend an afternoon benchmarking both formats > before committing to maildir. Performance is one issue, and depends on the size of an mbox. Corruptability is another. With 1-3TB of email I wouldn't do mbox format.
> > the basic argument is about ata-raid vs. scsi > > ATA is the present and the future. SCSI is for old farts and > the terminally large-budgeted. It is also for those who need more than a handful of drives, which you noted below. > The practical problem is that because IDE was designed for PCs with > one or two drives, it's complicated to get more than about ten IDE > drives into a PC-architecture system. Cory -- Cory Petkovsek Adapting Information Adaptable IT Consulting Technology to your (541) 914-8417 business [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.AdaptableIT.com _______________________________________________ EuG-LUG mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mailman.efn.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/eug-lug
