1 |
On 20/04/2013 17:00, Tanstaafl wrote: |
2 |
> Thanks for the responses so far... |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Another question - are there any caveats as to which filesystem to use |
5 |
> for a mail server, for virtualized systems? Ir do the same |
6 |
> issues/questions apply (ie, does the fact that it is virtualized not |
7 |
> change anything)? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> If there are none, I'm curious what others prefer. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I've been using reiserfs on my old mail server since it was first set up |
12 |
> (over 8 years ago). I have had no issues with it whatsoever, and even |
13 |
> had one scare with a bad UPS causing the system to experienc an unclean |
14 |
> shutdown - but it came back up, auto fsck'd, and there was no 'apparent' |
15 |
> data loss (this was a very long time ago, so if there had been any |
16 |
> serious problems, I'd have known about it long go). |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I've been considering using XFS, but have never used it before. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> So, anyway, opinions are welcome... |
21 |
|
22 |
|
23 |
Virtualization can change things, and it's not really intuitive. |
24 |
|
25 |
Regardless of what optimizations you apply to the VM, and regardless of |
26 |
what kind of virtualization is in use on the host, you are still going |
27 |
to be bound by the disk and fs behaviour of the host. If VMWare gives |
28 |
you a really shitty host driver, then something really shitty is going |
29 |
to be the best you can achieve. |
30 |
|
31 |
Disks aren't like eg NICs, you can't easily virtualize them and give the |
32 |
guest exclusive access in the style of para-virtualization (I can't |
33 |
imagine how that would even be done). |
34 |
|
35 |
You also didn't mention what mail server you use - implementations vary |
36 |
a great deal. Gut feel tells me that unless you are dealing with many |
37 |
1000s of mails in a short period you won't really need XFS's aggressive |
38 |
caching. But I'm happy to be proved wrong and numbers tell the truth :-) |
39 |
|
40 |
I think the best you will get here is a list of combinations that are |
41 |
unlikely to suit, and you will have to do your own extensive testing to |
42 |
find what works best in your area. |
43 |
|
44 |
FWIW, I have two mail relays (no mail storage) running old postfix |
45 |
versions on FreeBSD. I expected throughput to differ when virtualized on |
46 |
ESXi, but in practice I couldn't see a difference at all - maybe the |
47 |
mail servers were very under-utilized. Considering this pair deal with |
48 |
anything between 500,000 to a million mails a day total, I would not |
49 |
have considered them "under-utilized". Just goes to show how opinions |
50 |
are often worthless but numbers buys the whiskey :-) |
51 |
|
52 |
|
53 |
-- |
54 |
Alan McKinnon |
55 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |