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
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, whic
## 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
## 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
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. Fo
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. Fo
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 R
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 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. S
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
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 wa
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 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. S
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
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 wa
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 t
## 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 i
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
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 exp
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 t
## 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 i
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
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.
we
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 ex
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
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 n
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.
w
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 n
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
--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: Re
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
--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 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
--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: Re
--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 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
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, li
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, li
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 s
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 s
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
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
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
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
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
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
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, t
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, t
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 sugges
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 sugge
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 i
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
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 mailb
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
nd.
-Chad
- Original Message -
From: "Michael Loftis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Dan MacNeil" <[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*
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.
--On Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:51 -0400 Dan MacNeil
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now
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
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 bunc
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
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 mailb
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
nd.
-Chad
- 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 s
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.
--On Saturday, April 17, 2004 12:51 -0400 Dan MacNeil
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just converted from mbox to maildir
Right now
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 bunc
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 expec
66 matches
Mail list logo