| 1 |
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 11:18:33 AM CEST Tanstaafl wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 10/6/2017, 8:53:27 AM, Philip Webb <purslow@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 171005 christos kotsis wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance |
| 5 |
> >> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except /boot |
| 8 |
> > & have never had any problems with my files or drives. |
| 9 |
> > I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhaps c 20 MB ea -- |
| 10 |
> > & the big ones simply stay where I put them, so no changes to handle. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I used ReiserFS for many - 8+ - years on our old mail server, selected |
| 13 |
> for its performance with large numbers of small (maildir) files, and |
| 14 |
> never had a problem. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Same here, apart from that one partition where the fsck never worked. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> But during the last rebuild when virtualizing everything, sometime |
| 19 |
> around 2012, I switched to XFS, and believe I saw a performance gain, |
| 20 |
> and no more long fsck's during the rare reboots... and again, no problems. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
My last rebuild was earlier this year, my mail had already been migrated to |
| 23 |
ext4 without issues. (Did not notice any performance issues) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Personally, I can't wait until btrfs is fully ready/stable, and have |
| 26 |
> been considering FreeBSD (or FreeNAS) just for ZFS, for the reliability |
| 27 |
> factor, but have wondered about performance for mail servers. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs |
| 30 |
> or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server? |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
My mailserver (Cyrus) uses ext4 for the mailboxes. |
| 33 |
This is on a partition which is accessed via iSCSI. |
| 34 |
Which is a zvol on a ZFS pool. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Eg: disks <-> ZFS <-> zvol <-> iSCSI <-> ext4 |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I am not noticing any significant performance issues, the ones I am can be |
| 39 |
resolved by adding a dedicated SLOG en L2ARC, but this will only help the |
| 40 |
systems hanging in the rack as those are connected with a 20Gbe link. Rest of |
| 41 |
the systems won't get more than 1Gbe. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I have several large mailboxes: |
| 44 |
- postgresql-hackers = 195,000 items |
| 45 |
- gentoo-user = 240,000 items |
| 46 |
- Xen-devel = 366,000 items |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
The others are below 100,000. |
| 49 |
I use these as archives and regularly search through these before reverting to |
| 50 |
Google or asking on the relevant mailing lists. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I set |
| 53 |
> up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be nearly |
| 54 |
> as big. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
mdbox? Is this a single file per mail folder? |
| 57 |
The main reason I switched to maildir several decades ago was precisely the |
| 58 |
issues (by design) mbox has. |
| 59 |
A single corrupted email WILL kill the entire folder. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
-- |
| 62 |
Joost |
Archives