[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I strongly _dis_recommend mounting ext2fs filesystems sync. The system
> I described earlier had _terrible_ performance at first, it turned
> out this was because I followed the FAQ and mounted it sync.
Agreed; that's a serious issue. I would recommend switching to a better
synchronous filesystem, though, rather than using ext2 async.
Unfortunately, Linux offers few choices there. The BSD fs would be great
if it wasn't so immature under Linux; raiserfs might be just as good
(I don't know). It's rumored that ext3 will be journalled, synchronous
and real real fast--we'll see.
> Yes, mounting it async is bad for reliability, so decide for yourself.
The question underlying my recommendation to mount sync was: Would a
speed test be completely valid if reliability corners were cut?
Since a Linux box seldom goes down, you could 1) buy a 2-hour UPS, and 2)
mount a ramdisk on /var/qmail/queue (untested). Still ``pretty'' reliable,
but I bet that queue performance goes sky-high.
Len.
PS Then again, ``Profile--don't speculate.'' Mounting ext2 async might
approximate the performance of a ramdisk, since that's roughly what
``async'' means.
--
There's an engineering term for systems like that: ``garbage.''
-- Dan Bernstein
