On Thu, 30 Aug 2001, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 08:36:23AM +0800, Ian C. Sison wrote:
> > Do you have any news from the XFS front about getting nfs stable over XFS
> > or any other *FS? So far the only 'true' support nfs has is with ext2 and
> > recently reiserfs.
> >
> > NFS is very important when dealing with file servers, really IMHO, the
> > implementation of kernel-nfs in linux very problematic...
>
> what's the drawback of using userland NFS?
slowwwwwww zzzzZZZZZ, but in my experience, a little more stable..
> and, one reason the Maildir format was created was to allow safe mail delivery
> over NFS. anyone doing this? what fs is most suitable, in your opinion, for
> Maildir which has lots of relatively small files?
>
> the idea is to build a HA mail system using redundant MTA boxes mounting a
> single HA RAID-enabled spool machine. one could argue that multiple mailbox
> machines distributed by something like the perdition proxy would be better,
> though. I think Linux NFS will be the one to make-or-break the former.
I would go and experiment with a GFS cluster running on a fibre channel
disk array. This way you can have multiple servers running an MTA,
POP/IMAP, and still have reliability and fault tolerance offered by the
shared/replicated media...
As i said, there's so much _duplication_ of effort with journalling file
systems (xfs, jfs, ext3, reiser) when what is really needed is a good
distributed file system that is deployable and is ready for prime-time..
_
Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph
To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
