Hi Markus
On 18.04.2004, at 12:30, Markus Oswald wrote:
I suggest you read it first...
Quote from NFS_README.html:
---
# In order to have mailbox locking over NFS you have to configure
# everything to use fcntl() locks for mailbox access (or switch to
# maildir style,
Hi Markus
On 18.04.2004, at 12:30, Markus Oswald wrote:
I suggest you read it first...
Quote from NFS_README.html:
---
# In order to have mailbox locking over NFS you have to configure
# everything to use fcntl() locks for mailbox access (or switch to
# maildir style, which
Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 05:07, Markus Schabel wrote:
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large amounts of
mail. Since
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:51, Dan MacNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.
ReiserFS is very good for maildir. For
Donovan Baarda wrote:
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 05:07, Markus Schabel wrote:
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large amounts of
mail. Since
On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 02:51, Dan MacNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.
ReiserFS is very good for maildir. For
## Donovan Baarda ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
In the case of Reiser vs JFS vs XFS vs ext3, it depends on what you
want. If you want stability and reliability, then maturity is what
counts. XFS and JFS have long histories, but not with Linux. ext3 is the
newest but is a relatively simple extension to
--Sunday, April 18, 2004 01:43:43 +0200 Andreas John [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to be curious: I'm thinking for some time about using andrew fs, i.e.
coda instead of NFS.
Good luck. My experiments with CODA were quite disappointing.
Already the first run with bonnie++ for performance checking
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was no option (too much
data loss in the past) we opted for XFS.
Cheers, Marcel
--
--Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:14:22 +0200 Michelle Konzack
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am I right in that nobody on the list knows whether or not any advantage
to running raiserFS is swallowed by NFS?
RaiserFs is a realy fast filesystem for very much smal files
Well, from bad experience: Reiser
Am Mo, den 19.04.2004 schrieb George Georgalis um 04:40:
Hi,
You might like DRBD better than AFS, I think AFS is more suited, to
allow multiple servers to serve /usr/bin, ie static partitions. /var or
/home partitions need something different.
Coda does sound good. ...just following
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:21:53PM +0200, Markus Oswald wrote:
Am Mo, den 19.04.2004 schrieb George Georgalis um 04:40:
Hi,
You might like DRBD better than AFS, I think AFS is more suited, to
allow multiple servers to serve /usr/bin, ie static partitions. /var or
/home partitions need
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was no option (too much
data loss in the past) we opted for XFS.
Am Mo, den 19.04.2004 schrieb George Georgalis um 19:28:
As you already wrote - DRBD is a block device, not a filesystem. You
have to run a filesystem (like reiserfs oder ext3) on top of it, just as
you would have to with a normal block device like a SCSI RAID.
Comparing DRBD to NFS or AFS,
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:14:22 +0200 Michelle Konzack
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am I right in that nobody on the list knows whether or not any advantage
to running raiserFS is swallowed by NFS?
RaiserFs is a realy fast filesystem for very much smal files
Well, from bad
## Jose Alberto Guzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One recomendation is to always use the latest reiserfs-tools from
upstream in case of need, as the developers are constantly improving them.
In case of emergency, I do not want to rely on the latest improvements
(always hoping that all necessary
On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 03:07 PM, Markus Schabel wrote:
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some corrupted
reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the data (except
backups of coures ;)). We're still running reiserfs on our proxy
servers
(squid), but we have
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 03:07 PM, Markus Schabel wrote:
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some
corrupted reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the
data (except backups of coures ;)). We're still running reiserfs on
our proxy servers
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 08:02, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
## Jose Alberto Guzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One recomendation is to always use the latest reiserfs-tools from
upstream in case of need, as the developers are constantly improving them.
In case of emergency, I do not want to
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 01:21, Markus Schabel wrote:
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 03:07 PM, Markus Schabel wrote:
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some
corrupted reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the
data (except backups of
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 05:07, Markus Schabel wrote:
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was
--Sunday, April 18, 2004 01:43:43 +0200 Andreas John [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to be curious: I'm thinking for some time about using andrew fs, i.e.
coda instead of NFS.
Good luck. My experiments with CODA were quite disappointing.
Already the first run with bonnie++ for performance checking
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was no option (too much
data loss in the past) we opted for XFS.
Cheers, Marcel
--Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:14:22 +0200 Michelle Konzack
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am I right in that nobody on the list knows whether or not any advantage
to running raiserFS is swallowed by NFS?
RaiserFs is a realy fast filesystem for very much smal files
Well, from bad experience: Reiser
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 12:21:53PM +0200, Markus Oswald wrote:
Am Mo, den 19.04.2004 schrieb George Georgalis um 04:40:
Hi,
You might like DRBD better than AFS, I think AFS is more suited, to
allow multiple servers to serve /usr/bin, ie static partitions. /var or
/home partitions need
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was no option (too much
data loss in the past) we opted for XFS.
Am Mo, den 19.04.2004 schrieb George Georgalis um 19:28:
As you already wrote - DRBD is a block device, not a filesystem. You
have to run a filesystem (like reiserfs oder ext3) on top of it, just as
you would have to with a normal block device like a SCSI RAID.
Comparing DRBD to NFS or AFS,
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Sunday, April 18, 2004 10:14:22 +0200 Michelle Konzack
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Am I right in that nobody on the list knows whether or not any advantage
to running raiserFS is swallowed by NFS?
RaiserFs is a realy fast filesystem for very much smal files
Well, from bad
## Jose Alberto Guzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One recomendation is to always use the latest reiserfs-tools from
upstream in case of need, as the developers are constantly improving them.
In case of emergency, I do not want to rely on the latest improvements
(always hoping that all necessary
On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 03:07 PM, Markus Schabel wrote:
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some corrupted
reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the data (except
backups of coures ;)). We're still running reiserfs on our proxy
servers
(squid), but we have
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 03:07 PM, Markus Schabel wrote:
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some
corrupted reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the
data (except backups of coures ;)). We're still running reiserfs on
our proxy servers
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 08:02, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
## Jose Alberto Guzman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
One recomendation is to always use the latest reiserfs-tools from
upstream in case of need, as the developers are constantly improving them.
In case of emergency, I do not want to
On Tuesday 20 April 2004 01:21, Markus Schabel wrote:
Jeremy Zawodny wrote:
On Monday, April 19, 2004, at 03:07 PM, Markus Schabel wrote:
well, i see the same problem as everybody here: i've had some
corrupted reiserfs systems, and it wasn't possible to restore the
data (except backups of
On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 05:07, Markus Schabel wrote:
Marcel Hicking wrote:
--Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:38:56 -0700 Chad Cranston [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I chose ext3 for it's reliablity over ReiserFS.
I found ext3 too slow (although rock solid) for large
amounts of mail. Since Reiser was
Am 2004-04-17 23:29:56, schrieb Dan MacNeil:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michelle Konzack wrote in part:
But use a self-compiled Linux with nfs and nfsd compiled WITH
TCP and v3 support.
if you mount your server add nfsvers=3,tcp to it otherwise it
will use UDP which is realy not good.
Why? from my
Am So, den 18.04.2004 schrieb Andrew Miehs um 01:16:
I suggest you all read
http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/newdoc/NFS_README.html
Especially the sentence
'Thus, Postfix on NFS is slightly less reliable than Postfix on a local
disk.'
Either something is reliable or not. there
Hello All!
Please please note that the filesystem's name in question is not
r_a_iserFS, but r_e_iserFS. It was given that name by it's inventor Hans
Reiser. ReiserFS as I stated before does not raise anything (except
maybe the usable disk space when working with many large files).
Concerning
On Sunday 18 April 2004 01:16, Andrew Miehs wrote:
'Thus, Postfix on NFS is slightly less reliable than Postfix on a local
disk.'
Either something is reliable or not. there is no such thing as slightly
less reliable.
I do not agree with that general sentence at all !
That is akin to
Hi,
You might like DRBD better than AFS, I think AFS is more suited, to
allow multiple servers to serve /usr/bin, ie static partitions. /var or
/home partitions need something different.
Coda does sound good. ...just following these, not using them yet, I
think inter-mezzo is too young still,
Am 2004-04-17 23:29:56, schrieb Dan MacNeil:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michelle Konzack wrote in part:
But use a self-compiled Linux with nfs and nfsd compiled WITH
TCP and v3 support.
if you mount your server add nfsvers=3,tcp to it otherwise it
will use UDP which is realy not good.
Why? from my
Am So, den 18.04.2004 schrieb Andrew Miehs um 01:16:
I suggest you all read
http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/newdoc/NFS_README.html
Especially the sentence
'Thus, Postfix on NFS is slightly less reliable than Postfix on a local
disk.'
Either something is reliable or not. there
Hello All!
Please please note that the filesystem's name in question is not
r_a_iserFS, but r_e_iserFS. It was given that name by it's inventor Hans
Reiser. ReiserFS as I stated before does not raise anything (except
maybe the usable disk space when working with many large files).
Concerning
On Sunday 18 April 2004 01:16, Andrew Miehs wrote:
'Thus, Postfix on NFS is slightly less reliable than Postfix on a local
disk.'
Either something is reliable or not. there is no such thing as slightly
less reliable.
I do not agree with that general sentence at all !
That is akin to
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.
The benefits of running a central storage server and a bunch of seperate
web/smtp/pop3/spamfiltering/ftp/
Dan MacNeil wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
Even if it grows Factor 2 it's nothing you need to be afraid of with
extX. Sometimes we have so many files in directory that ls overflows :-)
I expect
Am 2004-04-17 12:51:32, schrieb Dan MacNeil:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.
The benefits of running a central storage server and a bunch of
- Original Message -
From: Michael Loftis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dan MacNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: RaiserFS via NFS
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have
*HELL*
to deal
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:22:57PM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote:
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have *HELL*
to deal with. It WILL corrupt your users mail, it WILL lose mail. It will
NOT work.
DO you KNOW what maildir IS?
// George
--On Saturday, April 17,
Hello Michael,
Am 2004-04-17 12:22:57, schrieb Michael Loftis:
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have *HELL*
to deal with. It WILL corrupt your users mail, it WILL lose mail. It will
NOT work.
Experience with mailbox ;-)
Right, if I open linux-kernel as mailbox
On Saturday 17 April 2004 20:22, Michael Loftis wrote:
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have *HELL*
to deal with. It WILL corrupt your users mail, it WILL lose mail. It will
NOT work.
Yeah Well My ISP, as have others undoubtedly, has their mailspools
I suggest you all read
http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/newdoc/NFS_README.html
Especially the sentence
'Thus, Postfix on NFS is slightly less reliable than Postfix on a local
disk.'
Either something is reliable or not. there is no such thing as slightly
less reliable.
Especially when
Hello!
Just to be curious: I'm thinking for some time about using andrew fs,
i.e. coda instead of NFS. I don't like NFS, due to complications with
access rights (Yes, I use ugidd). But it sounds like the locking problem
ist also not solved with coda, right?
rgds,
j.
Andrew Miehs wrote:
I
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michelle Konzack wrote in part:
But use a self-compiled Linux with nfs and nfsd compiled WITH
TCP and v3 support.
if you mount your server add nfsvers=3,tcp to it otherwise it
will use UDP which is realy not good.
Why? from my (maybe wrong?) reading of the docs, the
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.
The benefits of running a central storage server and a bunch of seperate
web/smtp/pop3/spamfiltering/ftp/
Dan MacNeil wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
Even if it grows Factor 2 it's nothing you need to be afraid of with
extX. Sometimes we have so many files in directory that ls overflows :-)
I expect
Am 2004-04-17 12:51:32, schrieb Dan MacNeil:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now there are some users with 500 files in a directory, I expect
this go grow.
I expect this figure to grow. RaiserFS is looking good.
The benefits of running a central storage server and a bunch of
- Original Message -
From: Michael Loftis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dan MacNeil [EMAIL PROTECTED]; debian-isp@lists.debian.org
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2004 11:22 AM
Subject: Re: RaiserFS via NFS
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have
*HELL*
to deal
On Sat, Apr 17, 2004 at 12:22:57PM -0600, Michael Loftis wrote:
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have *HELL*
to deal with. It WILL corrupt your users mail, it WILL lose mail. It will
NOT work.
DO you KNOW what maildir IS?
// George
--On Saturday, April 17,
Hello Michael,
Am 2004-04-17 12:22:57, schrieb Michael Loftis:
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have *HELL*
to deal with. It WILL corrupt your users mail, it WILL lose mail. It will
NOT work.
Experience with mailbox ;-)
Right, if I open linux-kernel as mailbox
On Saturday 17 April 2004 20:22, Michael Loftis wrote:
You can not, and DO NOT put your mail spool on NFS. You *WILL* have *HELL*
to deal with. It WILL corrupt your users mail, it WILL lose mail. It will
NOT work.
Yeah Well My ISP, as have others undoubtedly, has their mailspools
I suggest you all read
http://www.porcupine.org/postfix-mirror/newdoc/NFS_README.html
Especially the sentence
'Thus, Postfix on NFS is slightly less reliable than Postfix on a local
disk.'
Either something is reliable or not. there is no such thing as slightly
less reliable.
Especially when it
Hello!
Just to be curious: I'm thinking for some time about using andrew fs,
i.e. coda instead of NFS. I don't like NFS, due to complications with
access rights (Yes, I use ugidd). But it sounds like the locking problem
ist also not solved with coda, right?
rgds,
j.
Andrew Miehs wrote:
I
On Sat, 17 Apr 2004, Michelle Konzack wrote in part:
But use a self-compiled Linux with nfs and nfsd compiled WITH
TCP and v3 support.
if you mount your server add nfsvers=3,tcp to it otherwise it
will use UDP which is realy not good.
Why? from my (maybe wrong?) reading of the docs, the
63 matches
Mail list logo
