Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Jure Pečar
On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200 Sergio Devojno Bruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3, > XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M > mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB each partition)

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Sergio Devojno Bruder
Jure Pečar wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200 Sergio Devojno Bruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3, XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB e

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Simon Matter
> On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200 > Sergio Devojno Bruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3, >> XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M >> mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB each part

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Michael Loftis
--On November 6, 2005 12:51:33 PM +0100 Jure Pečar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200 Sergio Devojno Bruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3, XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a C

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Andrew Morgan
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Michael Loftis wrote: I'd also be VERY interested since our experience was quite the opposite. ReiserFS was faster than all three, XFS trailing a dismal third (also had corruption issues) and ext3 second or even more dismal third, depending on if you ignored it's wretched

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Jure Pečar
On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:20:03 -0800 (PST) Andrew Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mkfs -t ext3 -j -m 1 -O dir_index /dev/sdb1 > tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/sdb1 What about 1k blocks? I think they'd be more useful than 4k on mail spools ... -- Jure Pečar http://jure.pecar.org/ Cyrus Home Page

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Andrew Morgan
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Jure [ISO-8859-2] Pe?ar wrote: On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:20:03 -0800 (PST) Andrew Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: mkfs -t ext3 -j -m 1 -O dir_index /dev/sdb1 tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/sdb1 What about 1k blocks? I think they'd be more useful than 4k on mail spools ... Maybe,

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread David Lang
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Jure Pe?ar wrote: On Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:20:03 -0800 (PST) Andrew Morgan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: mkfs -t ext3 -j -m 1 -O dir_index /dev/sdb1 tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 /dev/sdb1 What about 1k blocks? I think they'd be more useful than 4k on mail spools ... I was recently doing

Authenticating (with cyradm) using an alternate Kerberos instance?

2005-11-06 Thread Lars Kellogg-Stedman
I'm running Cyrus imapd in a Kerberos environment. When using cyradm, I would like to authenticate with a /admin instance, rather than giving my primary instance admin privileges or always connecting as the 'cyrus' user. I haven't had much luck so far, and I think it's because I'm not clear on ho

How to do IMAP folder subscrib using cyradm?

2005-11-06 Thread Patrick T. Tsang
Hello,   I can login as cyrus admin, create user account and folders. But how to subscrib the folders? seems cyradm and its provided /Cyrus/IMAP/Admin.pm doesn't have this command.   Thanks PT   Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Robert Mueller
> >> In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3, > >> XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M > >> mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB each partition). > > > > Interesting ... can you provide some numbers, even from memory? > >

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Sergio Devojno Bruder
Michael Loftis wrote: Interesting ... can you provide some numbers, even from memory? I'd also be VERY interested since our experience was quite the opposite. ReiserFS was faster than all three, XFS trailing a dismal third (also had corruption issues) and ext3 second or even more dismal thir

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread David Lang
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Sergio Devojno Bruder wrote: David Lang wrote: (..) I was recently doing some testing of lots of small files on the various filesystems, and I ran into a huge difference (8x) depending on what allocator was used for ext*. the default allocator changed between ext2 and ext

Re: improving concurrency/performance

2005-11-06 Thread Sergio Devojno Bruder
David Lang wrote: >(..) I was recently doing some testing of lots of small files on the various filesystems, and I ran into a huge difference (8x) depending on what allocator was used for ext*. the default allocator changed between ext2 and ext3 (you can override it as a mount option) and when