| 1 |
On 24/04/2013 11:21, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2013 11:00:06 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>>> - avoid Postfix and Qmail |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> Why? I ask because I have a mail server with reiserfs on the mail |
| 7 |
>>> spool, it's been running for several years and behaved impeccably, |
| 8 |
>>> but if there is a good reason to switch, I will. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> It's one of those maybe-it-is, maybe-it-isn't scenarios. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Wiki has a pretty accurate description of the scene wrt mail spools: |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS#Criticism |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> "Some directory operations (including unlink(2)) are not synchronous on |
| 17 |
> ReiserFS, which can result in data corruption with applications relying |
| 18 |
> heavily on file-based locks (such as mail transfer agents qmail[9] and |
| 19 |
> Postfix[10]) if the machine halts before it has synchronized the disk." |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> So I can lose stuff if the computer crashes. I don't see that as a |
| 22 |
> specific problem with MTAs. although they do tend to have a lot of file |
| 23 |
> throughput. On the other hand, I think the fact that maildir uses so many |
| 24 |
> files is one of the reasons I went with ResierFS in the first place, |
| 25 |
> running out of inodes on a mail server would not be my idea of fun. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I solve that problem for me in the obvious way: |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I pay less attention to choice of filesystem and more attention on |
| 30 |
rigging systems that don't crash! |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Admittedly, I have the luxury of being able to do that, I don't work for |
| 33 |
Google (who need an entirely different approach due to scale) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 38 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives