I would add that having fewer, larger files should make backups much
more feasible. There's a certain amount of overhead for each file
operation (especially for us GFS people!) and reducing the number of
files will reduce that overhead.
Right now our backups (done via rsync) take a pretty scary amount of
time, only to get worse as the size of the mailstore (currently 200G) grows.
Personally I'm pretty excited about dbox.
Allen
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 14:32 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
This is about how to implement multiple msgs/file dbox format. The
current v1.1's one msg/file design would stay pretty much the same and
it would be compatible with this new design.
Out of curiosity, what's the advantage to going to multiple messages per
file? Wouldn't this have the same problems as mbox?
Multiple per file, not everything in one file. As long as the file size
is set "right", it's probably faster than one per file. We'll see :)
--
Allen Belletti
[email protected] 404-894-6221 Phone
Industrial and Systems Engineering 404-385-2988 Fax
Georgia Institute of Technology
