On Sun, Dec 05, 2004 at 12:43:14AM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004, Einar Indridason wrote:
Don't forget JFS from IBM.
All I know about JFS is that it did not come up as better enough than ext3
in a few benchmarks I've seen, to bother with it at the time :(
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004, Einar Indridason wrote:
We do have some *huge* mail-folders here, running on ext3, and when a
directory gets over a certain size, every operation on the directory
increases in time very sharply. (Due to the linked list implementation
in ext2/ext3.)
Is that ext3 in
On Sat, 04 Dec 2004, Einar Indridason wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 05:07:46PM -0600, Jim Miller wrote:
journaled but very slow. ReiserFS is a better choice for a journaled file
system and if you can hold off until all the bugs are worked out, Reiser4FS
would be the best choice (IMHO).
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004, Igor Brezac wrote:
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
series is *not* to be trusted yet. It is not just because of Cyrus (after
all, a bug in Cyrus code might cause BDB 4.x to misbehave),
This Cyrus bug has been fixed a long time ago. I've run cyrus
I think the performance of those disks (and the RAID you put on them) will
be much more significant that the filesystem you use, considering the size
of your user population. And given that factor, I'd say that even ext3
won't give you any problems performance-wise. Still, reiserfs, IMO, would
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:20:20PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
As a first example (and just like you said), if you don't get the DB_CONFIG
stuff exactly right, you can get anything from lock ups to environment
corruption. This is quite easy to hit with OpenLDAP. From what you
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:20:20PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
subversion repository with about 50Gb of data on a single berkeley
database file (version 4.2.52 + 2patches):
Heavy concurrent load on non-UP machines seem to be a much more common cause
of trouble with BDB than
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:20:20PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
As a first example (and just like you said), if you don't get the DB_CONFIG
stuff exactly right, you can get anything from lock ups to environment
corruption. This is
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 09:20:20PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
subversion repository with about 50Gb of data on a single berkeley
database file (version 4.2.52 + 2patches):
Heavy concurrent load on non-UP machines seem to be a
Zitat von Henrique de Moraes Holschuh [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I believe the openldap rationale is that it is impossible to have good BDB
defaults. This affects Cyrus as well, I think.
However, for Cyrus, it is probably easy enough to come up with a bare
minimum setup for a 1000 concurrent
This is interesting because I have a linux box (RedHat AS3) using RAID 10.
I
have some 5000 user accounts and anywhere from 2500 to 3000 concurrent
IMAP
sessions -- I think the Mulberry client opens multiple sessions since it's
only some 300 to 500 individual concurrent users. Anyway, what
Is this strictly referencing UFS on Solaris? Or is this also true with
UFS on *BSD where UFS_DIRHASH is present?
I was, yes, but I have no experience with it on BSD. DIRHASH sure
sounds nice. :)
John
--
John Madden
UNIX Systems Engineer
Ivy Tech State College
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
On Dec 1, 2004, at 11:15, Hamish wrote:
Hello everyone
I dont want to start a religious battle, but could I have some
opinions on filesystems for a 100ish user imap server? I have 2x 250G
western digital disks to use.
We are using JFS on a Redhat Linux machine. The mailstore consists of
two
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004, Jim Miller wrote:
notice is that when the mail delivery queue on the MTA gets very large,
which happens occassionally, the CPU load average goes way up and iowait
time as displayed using top can exceed 300% on a four processor box and
performance
Are you keeping tabs
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, Jim Miller wrote:
I feel that XFS is a bad choice since it is not a 'truly' journaled file
system. If you have a power failure/system crash/lockup, etc., etc. You
could very easily end up with a corrupt file system -- XFS doesn't write out
to the disks immediately (caching
David Lang wrote:
also note that if you are useing IDE drives you have no way of really
knowing when the data has hit the platter (as opposed to just being in
the buffer of the drive) as many of the drives will lie to you and tell
you the write is complete once it hits the buffers.
I think they
I think they use capacitors that will hold enough charge to allow
flushing the buffers to disk when there's a power loss.
And another set of caps to keep the spindles spinning so that data can be
written? I'm not yet willing to buy the bridge you're selling. :)
John
--
John Madden
UNIX
I didn't know reiser 3 would fully journal data (or that it has good
enough
write barriers and write optimization to make sure the filesystem never
returns before a fsync really means everything including data is on disk).
Is that correct? If it is, then reiser might be a better choice than
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Jules Agee wrote:
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2004 10:11:21 -0800
From: Jules Agee [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: best filesystem for imap server
David Lang wrote:
also note that if you are useing IDE drives you have no way of really
knowing when the data has hit
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, John Madden wrote:
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 14:53:07 -0500 (EST)
From: John Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: best filesystem for imap server
I think they use capacitors that will hold enough charge to allow
flushing the buffers
Jules Agee wrote:
David Lang wrote:
also note that if you are useing IDE drives you have no way of really
knowing when the data has hit the platter (as opposed to just being in
the buffer of the drive) as many of the drives will lie to you and
tell you the write is complete once it hits the
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004, John Madden wrote:
I think they use capacitors that will hold enough charge to allow
flushing the buffers to disk when there's a power loss.
And another set of caps to keep the spindles spinning so that data can be
written? I'm not yet willing to buy the bridge you're
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004, Rob Mueller wrote:
We use reiserfs for our large cyrus installation. We changed from ext3
[...]
That was very interesting and useful data, thanks for posting it!
Ordered = Data is written before meta-data journal is committed. This
avoids filesystem and data corruption.
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 06:48:02PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
wouldn't be appropriate. We could have used bdb, but generally have had
lots of problems with bdb so don't entirely trust it...
I don't know of anyone sane that trusts any BDB on the 4.x series.
With cyrus-imapd,
Ordered would be best for a Cyrus spoll, and I guess Data would be best on
MTAs (when they have a small enough queue lifetime for most messages, and
the journal is large enough).
I think probably just test and find which one gives you the better
performance. We tended to find that data=journal
FYI anyone looking for NVRAM solutions for journals/meta-data storage, I
just found this page:
http://www.storagesearch.com/ssd-buyers-guide.html
Which looks to have lots of juicy info. If anyone knows anything about any
of these products or has feedback, I'd love to hear about it, and I'm sure
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 06:48:02PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
wouldn't be appropriate. We could have used bdb, but generally have had
lots of problems with bdb so don't entirely trust it...
I don't know of anyone sane that
On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004, Andreas Hasenack wrote:
On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 06:48:02PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
wouldn't be appropriate. We could have used bdb, but generally have had
lots of problems with bdb so don't entirely trust
Hello everyone
I dont want to start a religious battle, but could I have some opinions
on filesystems for a 100ish user imap server? I have 2x 250G western
digital disks to use.
Thanks
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
List
This has been discussed on the list before, check the archives. I assume
with the hardware you mentioned, you're running Linux. For Linux, the
consensus here seems to be XFS is the best, though I don't know what
other filesystems these people have compared XFS to, or how detailed
their testing
I dont want to start a religious battle, but could I have some opinions
on filesystems for a 100ish user imap server? I have 2x 250G western
digital disks to use.
I think the performance of those disks (and the RAID you put on them) will
be much more significant that the filesystem you use,
Hamish wrote:
Hello everyone
I dont want to start a religious battle, but could I have some
opinions on filesystems for a 100ish user imap server? I have 2x 250G
western digital disks to use.
Thanks
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
Thanks for the answers, this is helpful. I use reiser for our samba
server and it has never had problems, just wanted to check if there was
something to bear in mind for imap. I will not be using RAID for the
setup, I will just rsync the disks every night and in case of disaster,
mount the
(thousands of messages in the inbox)
David Lang
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004, John
Madden wrote:
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 13:12:57 -0500 (EST)
From: John Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: best filesystem for imap server
I dont want to start a religious battle
Madden [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: best filesystem for imap server
I dont want to start a religious battle, but could I have some
opinions
on filesystems for a 100ish user imap server? I have 2x 250G western
digital disks to use.
I think the performance
Anyone know anything about Cyrus performance on UFS or the Veritas file
system, VXFS?
UFS is an utter nightmare, particularly with an IMAP load. I've never run
cyrus in particular on it, but knowing how it handles directories with
lots of small files... Well, let's just say it's like ext2/3
This is interesting because I have a linux box (RedHat AS3) using RAID 10. I
have some 5000 user accounts and anywhere from 2500 to 3000 concurrent IMAP
sessions -- I think the Mulberry client opens multiple sessions since it's
only some 300 to 500 individual concurrent users. Anyway, what I
John Madden wrote:
I dont want to start a religious battle, but could I have some opinions
on filesystems for a 100ish user imap server? I have 2x 250G western
digital disks to use.
I think the performance of those disks (and the RAID you put on them) will
be much more significant that the
This is interesting because I have a linux box (RedHat AS3) using RAID
10. I have some 5000 user accounts and anywhere from 2500 to 3000
concurrent IMAP sessions -- I think the Mulberry client opens multiple
sessions since it's only some 300 to 500 individual concurrent users.
Anyway, what I
Hello
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 16:29:16 -0500 (EST), John Madden
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyone know anything about Cyrus performance on UFS or the Veritas file
system, VXFS?
UFS is an utter nightmare, particularly with an IMAP load. I've never run
cyrus in particular on it, but knowing how
The MTA is postfix and it is on a separate spindle -- the RAID is exclusively
for the IMAP mailstore. My setup includes two boxes that are MTA only and
includes antivirus scanning of email, etc. One is primarily internal mail and
the other is the primary external gateway. Neither of thses
This is interesting because I have a linux box (RedHat AS3) using
RAID 10. I
have some 5000 user accounts and anywhere from 2500 to 3000
concurrent IMAP
sessions -- I think the Mulberry client opens multiple sessions since it's
only some 300 to 500 individual concurrent users. Anyway, what
42 matches
Mail list logo
