In regard to: Re: [Imap-uw] Mix format downside?, Mark Crispin said (at...:
All the backup detriments (lots of small files)
would also go away.
How is there a "backup detriment"? The main detriment is cosmetic, at least
until you start getting into 4 or 5 digit file counts. Backup systems are
supposed to be able to handle backing up multiple files.
Believe it or not, it can take longer to do a true incremental of a
large filesystem (e.g. 250 GB in size, 210 GB used, 3.5 million files)
where almost nothing has changed than it takes to do a full backup of
the same filesystem. We've seen that several times on our largest
filesystems, which are generally Linux boxes with ext3 filesystems
(one of them is Linux with XFS).
I don't expect any of our IMAP boxes will ever get to that many files,
even if we stay with a smaller MIXDATAROLL, but lots of small files
take longer to back up than fewer, larger files.
We're using EMC/Legato NetWorker for our backups.
Would MIX with a large MIXDATAROLL still be better than MBX, primarily
because it's less prone to corruption and recovering from corruption is
easier? How about performance vs. MBX? Slightly (but not much) worse,
in most cases?
You would lose most of the benefit of mix with the exception of fast open. In
other respects, it'll probably be slower (due to more work to do) and less
reliable (due to greater complexity) than mbx.
Much of the corruption protection in mix comes from the avoidance of large
files.
Thanks for the info. I'll pass that along to my coworkers.
Tim
--
Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Information Technology Services (701) 231-1076 (Voice)
Room 242-J6, IACC Building (701) 231-8541 (Fax)
North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58105-5164
_______________________________________________
Imap-uw mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-uw
