Andrew McNamara wrote, at 01/19/2009 01:29 AM:
Yeah, except Postfix encodes the inode of the queue files in its queue
IDs, so it gets very confused if you do this. Same with restoring
queues from backups.
You should be able to get away with this if, when moving the queue to
another
Please, we are following a long thread I introduced a while ago which
was speaking about file system. If you want to ask question about
something you red in that thread, but not properly speaking about
file system, please, be kind enough to start another thread and stop
replying in that thread.
Yeah, except Postfix encodes the inode of the queue files in its queue
IDs, so it gets very confused if you do this. Same with restoring
queues from backups.
You should be able to get away with this if, when moving the queue to
another machine, you move the queued mail from hold, incoming,
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 05:20:02PM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
I've even been playing a little with userland ZFS, but it's far from
usable in production (was a nice little toy. though, and a /lot/ faster
than could be believed).
Yeah - zfs-on-fuse is not something I'd want to trust production
Bron Gondwana wrote, at 01/10/2009 04:56 AM:
So - no filesystem is sacred. Except for bloody out1 with its 1000+
queued postfix emails and no replication. It's been annoying me for
over a year now, because EVERYTHING ELSE is replicated. We've got
some new hardware in place, so I'm
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
Bron Gondwana wrote, at 01/10/2009 04:56 AM:
So - no filesystem is sacred. Except for bloody out1 with its 1000+
queued postfix emails and no replication. It's been annoying me for
over a year now, because EVERYTHING ELSE is
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I didn't.
--clip--
Btrfs is in so early development that I don't know yet what to say about
it, but the fact of ZFS's being
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:13:25PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
There's a significant upfront cost to learning a whole new system
for one killer feature, especially if it comes along with signifiant
regressions in lots of other features (like a non-sucky userland
out of the box).
The non-sucky
On 01/09/2009 12:59 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:13:25PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
There's a significant upfront cost to learning a whole new system
for one killer feature, especially if it comes along with signifiant
regressions in lots of other features (like a
Nic Bernstein wrote:
PS - This has been a very interesting thread to read. Some of us just
don't have the exposure to large systems like the participants in this
thread have, and this can be very educational.
It's actually been helpful to us, as well.
All of our mail backends are
Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:13:25PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
(notice, didn't mention AIX. I've got my standards ;)
Hey - I have a friend who _likes_ AIX. There are odd people in the
world.
We at Uppsala university have been running cyrus on AIX for a little more than
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 10:54:10AM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
So have I. But in the current Cyrus installation, I'm stuck with Linux,
so I concentrated on what's available on Linux. Moreover, I don't want
to use non-free operating systems - if anything, I've become more
ideological with
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 08:41:38AM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote:
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 10:54:10AM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
So have I. But in the current Cyrus installation, I'm stuck with Linux,
so I concentrated on what's available on Linux. Moreover, I don't want
to use non-free
Hm.
ReiserFS:
If I'm still following after reading through all this discussion,
everyone who is actually using ReiserFS (v3) appears to be very content
with it, even with very large installations. Apparently the fact that
ReiserFS uses the BKL in places doesn't hurt performance too badly, even
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I have adminned a half-dozen UNIX variants professionally but
keep running into admins who only do ONE and for whom every
problem is solved with how can I do this with one OS only?
I admin
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:20:00PM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
If I'm still following after reading through all this discussion,
everyone who is actually using ReiserFS (v3) appears to be very content
with it, even with very large installations. Apparently the fact that
ReiserFS uses the BKL
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I have adminned a half-dozen UNIX variants professionally but
keep running into admins who only do ONE and for whom every
On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
We run one zfs machine. I've seen it report issues on a scrub
only to not have them on the second scrub. While it looks shiny
and great, it's also relatively new.
Wait, weren't you just crowing about ext4? The filesystem that was
marked GA
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:03 -0500, Dale Ghent da...@elemental.org wrote:
On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
We run one zfs machine. I've seen it report issues on a scrub
only to not have them on the second scrub. While it looks shiny
and great, it's also relatively new.
On Jan 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I have adminned a half-dozen UNIX variants professionally but
keep
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:57:18PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
On Jan 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I have
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Just to come back to this - I should say that I'm a big fan
of ZFS and what Sun have done with filesystem design. Despite
the issues we've had with that machine, I know it's
Bron Gondwana wrote:
BUT - if someone is asking what's the best filesystem to use
on Linux and gets told ZFS, and by the way you should switch
operating systems and ditch all the rest of your custom setup/
experience then you're as bad as a Linux weenie saying just
use Cyrus on Linux in a how
There's a significant upfront cost to learning a whole new system
for one killer feature, especially if it comes along with signifiant
regressions in lots of other features (like a non-sucky userland
out of the box).
...
The non-sucky userland comment is simply a matter of preference, and
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Rob Mueller wrote:
But the new Solid-State-Disks seem very promising. They are claimed to
give 30x the throughput of a 15k rpm disk. If IO improves by 30 times
that should make all these optimizations unnecessary.
As my boss used to tell me ... Good hardware always
$ mount | wc -l
92
Wow.
We've found that splitting the data up into more volumes + more cyrus
instances seems to help as well because it seems to reduce overall
contention points in the kernel + software (eg filesystem locks spread
across multiple mounts, db locks are spread across
David Lang wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Rob Mueller wrote:
But the new Solid-State-Disks seem very promising. They are claimed to
give 30x the throughput of a 15k rpm disk. If IO improves by 30 times
that should make all these optimizations unnecessary.
As my boss used to tell me ... Good
2009/1/5 Patrick Boutilier bouti...@ednet.ns.ca
David Lang wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Rob Mueller wrote:
But the new Solid-State-Disks seem very promising. They are claimed to
give 30x the throughput of a 15k rpm disk. If IO improves by 30 times
that should make all these optimizations
We've found that splitting the data up into more volumes + more cyrus
instances seems to help as well because it seems to reduce overall
contention points in the kernel + software (eg filesystem locks spread
across multiple mounts, db locks are spread across multiple dbs, etc)
Makes sense.
On the other hand, XFS was the only Linux filesystems capable to handle our
5 million files (at that time, we're now at 33 million) we had in these
days with an acceptable performance. Ext3 was way too slow with directories
with 1000 files (but many things have changed from kernel 2.4.x
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:46:41AM +0530, ram wrote:
Running multiple cyrus instances with different dbs ? How do we do that.
I have seen the ultimate io-contention point is the mailboxes.db file.
And that has to be single.
Yeah, mailboxes.db access kinda sucks like that. If you're making
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
I never really got the point of the data=writeback mode. Sure, it
increases throughput, but so does disabling the journal completely, and
seems to me the end result as concerns data integrity is exactly the
same.
The *filesystem* is
Running multiple cyrus instances with different dbs ? How do we do that.
I have seen the ultimate io-contention point is the mailboxes.db file.
And that has to be single.
Do you mean dividing the users to different cyrus instances. That is a
maintenance issue IMHO.
As Bron said, yes it is,
Ext4, I never tried. Nor reiser3. I may have to, we will build a brand
new
Cyrus spool (small, just 5K users) next month, and the XFS unlink
[lack of] performance worries me.
From what I can tell, all filesystems seem to have relatively poor unlink
performance and unlinks often cause
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh h...@debian.org wrote:
Ext4, I never tried. Nor reiser3. I may have to, we will build a brand
new Cyrus spool (small, just 5K users) next month, and the XFS unlink
[lack of] performance worries me.
Nobody likes deletes. Even databases used to mark deleted space
Now see, I've had almost exactly the opposite experience. Reiserfs seemed
to
start out well and work consistently until the filesystem reached a
certain
size (around 160GB, ~30m files) at which point backing it up would start
to
take too long and at around 180GB would take nearly a
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 13:21 +1100, Rob Mueller wrote:
Now see, I've had almost exactly the opposite experience. Reiserfs seemed
to
start out well and work consistently until the filesystem reached a
certain
size (around 160GB, ~30m files) at which point backing it up would start
There are /lots/ of (comparative) tests done: The most recent I could
find with a quick Google is here:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=ext4_benchmarks
Almost every filesystem benchmark I've ever seen is effectively useless for
comparing what's best for a cyrus mail
Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to use a
NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
I believe I'll look to ext4 that seemed to be available in last kernel, and
also to Solaris, but we are not enough to support another OS.
Dom
And Happy New Year
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:47 +0100, LALOT Dominique wrote:
Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to
use a NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
Personally, I'd never use NFS for anything. Over the years I've had way
to many NFS related problems
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
[...]
a scripted rename of mailboxes to balance partition utilization when
we
add another partition.
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
during the time they are being renamed and moved to another partition?
Hi,
I would not discount using reiserfs (v3) by any means. It's still by
far a better choice for a filesystem with Cyrus then Ext3 or Ext4. I
haven't really seen anyone do any tests with Ext4, but I imagine it
should be about par for the course for Ext3.
as far as the NFS... NFS isn't
-- Nik Conwell n...@bu.edu is rumored to have mumbled on 31. Dezember 2008
07:47:31 -0500 regarding Re: choosing a file system:
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
during the time they are being renamed and moved to another partition?
I just do a grep
-- Nik Conwell n...@bu.edu is rumored to have mumbled on 31. Dezember 2008
07:47:31 -0500 regarding Re: choosing a file system:
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
during the time they are being renamed and moved to another partition?
I moved a few thousand
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:38:21AM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
In regards to ext3 I'd pay attention to the vintage of problem reports
and performance issues; ext3 of several years ago is not the ext3 of
today, many improvements have been made. data=writeback mode can help
performance
У вт, 2008-12-30 у 17:49 +0100, LALOT Dominique пише:
Once, there was a bad shutdown corrupting ext3fs and we spent 6 hours
on an fsck.
Actually i do use reiserfs over 2 years on cyrus-imapd. It performs
great even with realy big count of files in imap spool folders. But i
dont know how it
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:58:57AM -0800, Scott Likens wrote:
I would not discount using reiserfs (v3) by any means. It's still by far a
better choice for a filesystem with Cyrus then Ext3 or Ext4. I haven't really
seen anyone do any tests with Ext4, but I imagine it should be about par for
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 15:46 +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:38:21AM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
In regards to ext3 I'd pay attention to the vintage of problem reports
and performance issues; ext3 of several years ago is not the ext3 of
today, many improvements
Ah the saga of Hans Reiser. That unfortunately is the Downfall of
Reiserfs.
Yes, his company has disappeared, and a void has appeared from his
lack of presence?
However, the Reiserfs4 patch set is current against the linux kernel
2.6.28 (see
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:47 +0100, LALOT Dominique wrote:
Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to
use a NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
Personally, I'd never use NFS for anything. Over
Nik Conwell wrote:
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
[...]
a scripted rename of mailboxes to balance partition utilization when we
add another partition.
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes during
the time they are being renamed and moved to
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:47:31AM -0500, Nik Conwell wrote:
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
[...]
a scripted rename of mailboxes to balance partition utilization when
we
add another partition.
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
Hello,
We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN from EMC
and thanks to our DELL support we are obliged to install redhat. The only
option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old kernels. We have 4000 accounts
for staff and 2 for students
The system is rather fast and
On Dec 30, 2008, at 8:49 AM, LALOT Dominique wrote:
Hello,
We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN
from EMC and thanks to our DELL support we are obliged to install
redhat. The only option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old
kernels. We have 4000
LALOT Dominique dom.la...@gmail.com wrote:
zfs (but we should switch to solaris or freebsd and throw away our costly
SAN)
Why that? SAN volumes are running very fine with Solaris 10 hosts (SPARC
and x86). You have extended multipathing (symmetric and asymmetric) onboard.
Solaris accepts
On Dec 30, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Pascal Gienger wrote:
LALOT Dominique dom.la...@gmail.com wrote:
zfs (but we should switch to solaris or freebsd and throw away our
costly
SAN)
Why that? SAN volumes are running very fine with Solaris 10 hosts
(SPARC
and x86). You have extended
Once, there was a bad shutdown corrupting ext3fs and we spent 6 hours on an
fsck.
Next we discovered that our backup system was going slower and slower. We
just pointed out that it was due to fragmentation, and guess what, there's
no online defrag tool for ext3.
Sure it isn't due to the
We run Solaris 10 on our Cyrus mail-store backends.
The mail is stored in a ZFS pool. The ZFS pool are
composed of 4 SAN volumes in RAID-10. The active
and failover server of each backend pair have fiber multipath
enabled so their dual connections to the SAN switch ensure
that if an HBA or SAN
Robert Banz r...@nofocus.org wrote:
At my last job, we had explored a Dell/EMC SAN at one point. Those
folks don't seem to understand the idea that Fibre Channel is a well
established standard -- they only expect you to connect their
supported stack of hardware and software, otherwise they
John,
No, that was due to framentation. A fresh copy (one night to copy, then 2
hours to backup, 6 times faster then) solved that problem.
There's a filefrag utility, and for some mailboxes, it was over 60%. I have
3 500Mo spools at the moment. And one is left for the copy..
You copy first your
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, LALOT Dominique wrote:
Hello,
We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN from EMC
and thanks to our DELL support we are obliged to install redhat. The only
option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old kernels. We have 4000 accounts
for staff and
LALOT Dominique wrote:
Hello,
We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN from EMC
and thanks to our DELL support we are obliged to install redhat. The only
option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old kernels. We have 4000 accounts
for staff and 2 for students
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0700, Shawn Nock wrote:
Bron and the fastmail guys could tell you more about reiserfs... we've
used RHSuSE/reiserfs/EMC for quite a while and we are very happy.
Yeah, sure could :)
You can probably find plenty of stuff from me in the archives about our
setup
63 matches
Mail list logo
