----- Цитат от Bron Gondwana (br...@fastmail.fm), на 09.10.2011 в 23:29 ----- > > My goodness. That's REALLY recent in filesystem times. Something > that recent plus "all my eggs in one basket" of changing to a > large multi-spindle filesystem that would really get the benefits > of XFS would be more dangerous than I'm willing to consider. That's > barely a year old. At least we're not still running Debian's 2.6.32 > any more, but still. > > I'll run up some tests again some time, but I'm not thinking of > switching soon. >
I run a couple of busy postfix MX servers with queues now on XFS: average: 400 deliveries per minute peak: 1200 deliveries per minute. 4 months ago they were hosted on 8 core Xeon, 6xSAS10k RAID 10 machines. The spools were on ext4. When I have switched the queue filesystem to XFS with delaylog option (around 2.6.36) the load average dropped from 2.5 to 0.5. Now I run the same servers on smaller machines - dual core Opterons. The queues are on one Intel SLC SSD. The load average of the machines is under 0.2. Now, about the spools. They are managed by Cyrus, so not a Maildir but close. We have now in use 2 types of servers for spools: 24 SATA x 1T disks in RAID5 12 SATA x 3T disks in RAID5. The mail spools and other mail related filesystems are on XFS with delaylog option. They run with average 200 TPS Yes, the expunges take some time. But we run the task every night for 1/7 of the mailboxes, so every mailbox is expunged once in a week. The expunge task runs for 2-3 hours on around 50k mailboxes. I have done some test with BTRFS for spools but I am quite disappointed - horrible performance and horrible stability. The only other promising option was ZFS but it means to switch also the OS to FreeBSD or some form of Solaris. And we are not there yet. Best regards -- Luben Karavelov
