| 1 |
On Sat, April 20, 2013 18:22, Pandu Poluan wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Apr 20, 2013 10:01 PM, "Tanstaafl" <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> Thanks for the responses so far... |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> Another question - are there any caveats as to which filesystem to use |
| 7 |
> for a mail server, for virtualized systems? Ir do the same |
| 8 |
> issues/questions |
| 9 |
> apply (ie, does the fact that it is virtualized not change anything)? |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> If there are none, I'm curious what others prefer. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> I've been using reiserfs on my old mail server since it was first set up |
| 14 |
> (over 8 years ago). I have had no issues with it whatsoever, and even had |
| 15 |
> one scare with a bad UPS causing the system to experienc an unclean |
| 16 |
> shutdown - but it came back up, auto fsck'd, and there was no 'apparent' |
| 17 |
> data loss (this was a very long time ago, so if there had been any serious |
| 18 |
> problems, I'd have known about it long go). |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> I've been considering using XFS, but have never used it before. |
| 21 |
>> |
| 22 |
>> So, anyway, opinions are welcome... |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Thanks again |
| 25 |
>> |
| 26 |
>> Charles |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Reiterating what others have said, in a virtualized environment, it's how |
| 30 |
> you build the underlying storage that will have the greatest effect on |
| 31 |
> performance. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Just an illustration: in my current employment, we have a very heavily |
| 34 |
> used |
| 35 |
> database (SQL Server). To ensure good performance, I dedicated a RAID |
| 36 |
> array |
| 37 |
> of 8 drives (15k RPM each), ensure that the space allocation is 'thick' |
| 38 |
> not |
| 39 |
> 'thin', and dedicate the whole RAID array to just that one VM. Performance |
| 40 |
> went through the roof with that one... especially since it was originally |
| 41 |
> a |
| 42 |
> physical server running on top of 4 x 7200 RPM drives ;-) |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> If you have the budget, you really should invest in a SAN Storage solution |
| 45 |
> that can provide "tiered storage", in which frequently used blocks will be |
| 46 |
> 'cached' in SSD, while less frequently used blocks are migrated first to |
| 47 |
> slower SAS drives, and later on (if 'cold') to even slower SATA drives. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
4-tier sounds nicer: 1 TB in high speed RAM for the high-speed layer, with |
| 50 |
dedicated UPS to ensure this is backed up to disk on shutdown. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Joost |
Archives