| 1 |
On 10/6/2017, 8:53:27 AM, Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 171005 christos kotsis wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance |
| 4 |
>> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except /boot |
| 7 |
> & have never had any problems with my files or drives. |
| 8 |
> I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhaps c 20 MB ea -- |
| 9 |
> & the big ones simply stay where I put them, so no changes to handle. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I used ReiserFS for many - 8+ - years on our old mail server, selected |
| 12 |
for its performance with large numbers of small (maildir) files, and |
| 13 |
never had a problem. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But during the last rebuild when virtualizing everything, sometime |
| 16 |
around 2012, I switched to XFS, and believe I saw a performance gain, |
| 17 |
and no more long fsck's during the rare reboots... and again, no problems. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Personally, I can't wait until btrfs is fully ready/stable, and have |
| 20 |
been considering FreeBSD (or FreeNAS) just for ZFS, for the reliability |
| 21 |
factor, but have wondered about performance for mail servers. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs |
| 24 |
or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I set |
| 27 |
up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be nearly |
| 28 |
as big. |
Archives