Mark Crispin wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2010, Timo Sirainen wrote: >> So I'm kind of hoping people would stop using mbox. :) > > You and me both! ;) ---- Grr.... you fraggle-robbin $...@!... My antique perl code's been doing fastidious locking since ...well a long time! plblblbl... I can't help I like the compactness of having a bunch of messages in 1 file. I have between 70-80 'active' (meaning they get incoming messages), and maybe 120 folders like this (single file, multi-message) overall, with file sizes ranging up to 20-30MB as norm, maybe 60-80MB in archives, vast majority under 10MB, but message totals? Gads...at 1000-2000 messages/day, my local file count would be extreme. So with large disk systems, I optimize for large files where xfs does better, but small files and large number, and my filesystem would suffer (Actually that 1000-2000 count has probably dropped since I fell off of lkml again...;) ).
Given the slowness of today's disks in seeking, it's a good tradeoff, one that may not be necessary, after the next DOJ anti-trust lawsuit against solid-state drive manufacturers -- probably not till 2012-2013 at the rate they move (unless some non-colluders enter the market place and force prices down significantly before then)... ;^). With solid-state disks as fast as todays hard disks and seek speeds 100x-1000x faster, all benchmarks are off, though still xfs does show lowest SYSTEM cpu usage in comparable benchmarks of any fs. But with solid state the differences may be down in the noise level. (just had to speak up for the mbox'ers-who-follow locking-club .... ;) ) -l _______________________________________________ Imap-uw mailing list Imap-uw@u.washington.edu http://mailman2.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
