On Tue, 2004-03-16 at 07:56, Andrew J Caird wrote: > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 03/15/2004 06:11:14 > > PM: > > > > > I read somewhere that reiserfs is faster then ext3 on small file > > > deletion/creation. Typical mail load. > > > On a high load site, would type of file system really matter? > > > > The testing in "sendmail Performance Tuning" indicates that ext3 is > > faster. Even ext2 is faster than Reiser. See section 3.3.3, pgs. 42-43. > > I can't say enough about this book, it's very dense, but worth reading > a couple of times. Anyone running high-performance email systems would > be well served by reading it. > > The other thing to keep in mind is that there is more to filesystems > than speed when it comes to email - they also have to be reliable and > be able to insure message storage. Of course, for MD's temp space the > opposite is true - message persistance (beyond a few seconds) isn't > important and speed is all that matters. See Christenson's book for > a more educated discussion of these issues.
Exactly.. the problem that people forget is that even with a 15k disk there is a lot more time involved than sending data to a RAM disk. [My little test with bonnie++ on linux a long time ago showed it was at least 10x faster than any disk drive+filesystem.. the bottleneck being the CPU/MMU]. If you can afford it getting a hardware RAMdisk that backs up to diskdrive is also good for /var/spool. The speeds were limited to what the SCSI pipe could send it. [Sigh I had to return mine :(]. -- Stephen John Smoogen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Los Alamos National Lab CCN-5 Sched 5/40 PH: 4-0645 Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S Los Alamos, NM 87545 -- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka -- _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
