Please, we are following a long thread I introduced a while ago which
was speaking about file system. If you want to ask question about
something you red in that thread, but not properly speaking about
file system, please, be kind enough to start another thread and stop
replying in that thread.
Andrew McNamara wrote, at 01/19/2009 01:29 AM:
>> Yeah, except Postfix encodes the inode of the queue files in its queue
>> IDs, so it gets very confused if you do this. Same with restoring
>> queues from backups.
>
> You should be able to get away with this if, when moving the queue to
> another
>Yeah, except Postfix encodes the inode of the queue files in its queue
>IDs, so it gets very confused if you do this. Same with restoring
>queues from backups.
You should be able to get away with this if, when moving the queue to
another machine, you move the queued mail from hold, incoming, act
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:35:53PM -0500, Jorey Bump wrote:
> Bron Gondwana wrote, at 01/10/2009 04:56 AM:
>
> > So - no filesystem is sacred. Except for bloody out1 with its 1000+
> > queued postfix emails and no replication. It's been annoying me for
> > over a year now, because EVERYTHING ELS
Bron Gondwana wrote, at 01/10/2009 04:56 AM:
> So - no filesystem is sacred. Except for bloody out1 with its 1000+
> queued postfix emails and no replication. It's been annoying me for
> over a year now, because EVERYTHING ELSE is replicated. We've got
> some new hardware in place, so I'm inves
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 05:20:02PM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
> I've even been playing a little with userland ZFS, but it's far from
> usable in production (was a nice little toy. though, and a /lot/ faster
> than could be believed).
Yeah - zfs-on-fuse is not something I'd want to trust producti
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 08:41:38AM -0600, Scott Lambert wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 10:54:10AM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
> > So have I. But in the current Cyrus installation, I'm stuck with Linux,
> > so I concentrated on what's available on Linux. Moreover, I don't want
> > to use non-free
On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 10:54:10AM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
> So have I. But in the current Cyrus installation, I'm stuck with Linux,
> so I concentrated on what's available on Linux. Moreover, I don't want
> to use non-free operating systems - if anything, I've become more
> ideological with a
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:13:25PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
>> (notice, didn't mention AIX. I've got my standards ;)
>
> Hey - I have a friend who _likes_ AIX. There are odd people in the
> world.
We at Uppsala university have been running cyrus on AIX for a little more
Nic Bernstein wrote:
> PS - This has been a very interesting thread to read. Some of us just
> don't have the exposure to large systems like the participants in this
> thread have, and this can be very educational.
It's actually been helpful to us, as well.
All of our mail backends are curren
On 01/09/2009 12:59 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:13:25PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
There's a significant upfront cost to learning a whole new system
for one killer feature, especially if it comes along with signifiant
regressions in lots of other features (like a non-su
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 10:13:25PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
>>
>> There's a significant upfront cost to learning a whole new system
>> for one killer feature, especially if it comes along with signifiant
>> regressions in lots of other features (like a non-sucky userland
>> out of the box).
>
> Th
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
> (Summary of filesystem discussion)
>
> You left out ZFS.
>
> Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I didn't.
--clip--
Btrfs is in so early development that I don't know yet what to say about
it, but the fact of ZFS's b
>
> There's a significant upfront cost to learning a whole new system
> for one killer feature, especially if it comes along with signifiant
> regressions in lots of other features (like a non-sucky userland
> out of the box).
...
The "non-sucky" userland comment is simply a matter of preference,
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> BUT - if someone is asking "what's the best filesystem to use
> on Linux" and gets told ZFS, and by the way you should switch
> operating systems and ditch all the rest of your custom setup/
> experience then you're as bad as a Linux weenie saying "just
> use Cyrus on Linux"
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
> (Summary of filesystem discussion)
>
> You left out ZFS.
Just to come back to this - I should say that I'm a big fan
of ZFS and what Sun have done with filesystem design. Despite
the issues we've had with that machine, I know it's gr
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:57:18PM -0800, Robert Banz wrote:
>
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
>>> (Summary of filesystem discussion)
>>>
>>> You left out ZFS.
>>>
>>> Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows ad
On Jan 8, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
>> (Summary of filesystem discussion)
>>
>> You left out ZFS.
>>
>> Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
>>
>> I have adminned a half-dozen UNIX variants professionally b
On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 20:03 -0500, "Dale Ghent" wrote:
> On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
>
> > We run one zfs machine. I've seen it report issues on a scrub
> > only to not have them on the second scrub. While it looks shiny
> > and great, it's also relatively new.
>
> Wait, we
On Jan 8, 2009, at 7:46 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> We run one zfs machine. I've seen it report issues on a scrub
> only to not have them on the second scrub. While it looks shiny
> and great, it's also relatively new.
Wait, weren't you just crowing about ext4? The filesystem that was
marked G
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:01:04AM -0800, Vincent Fox wrote:
> (Summary of filesystem discussion)
>
> You left out ZFS.
>
> Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
>
> I have adminned a half-dozen UNIX variants professionally but
> keep running into admins who only do ONE and for who
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 05:20:00PM +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
> If I'm still following after reading through all this discussion,
> everyone who is actually using ReiserFS (v3) appears to be very content
> with it, even with very large installations. Apparently the fact that
> ReiserFS uses the B
(Summary of filesystem discussion)
You left out ZFS.
Sometimes Linux admins remind me of Windows admins.
I have adminned a half-dozen UNIX variants professionally but
keep running into admins who only do ONE and for whom every
problem is solved with "how can I do this with one OS only?"
I admin
Hm.
ReiserFS:
If I'm still following after reading through all this discussion,
everyone who is actually using ReiserFS (v3) appears to be very content
with it, even with very large installations. Apparently the fact that
ReiserFS uses the BKL in places doesn't hurt performance too badly, even
wi
>> We've found that splitting the data up into more volumes + more cyrus
>> instances seems to help as well because it seems to reduce overall
>> contention points in the kernel + software (eg filesystem locks spread
>> across multiple mounts, db locks are spread across multiple dbs, etc)
>
> Make
2009/1/5 Patrick Boutilier
> David Lang wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Rob Mueller wrote:
>>
>> But the new Solid-State-Disks seem very promising. They are claimed to
give 30x the throughput of a 15k rpm disk. If IO improves by 30 times
that should make all these optimizations unneces
David Lang wrote:
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Rob Mueller wrote:
But the new Solid-State-Disks seem very promising. They are claimed to
give 30x the throughput of a 15k rpm disk. If IO improves by 30 times
that should make all these optimizations unnecessary.
As my boss used to tell me ... Good hardwar
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Rob Mueller wrote:
>> But the new Solid-State-Disks seem very promising. They are claimed to
>> give 30x the throughput of a 15k rpm disk. If IO improves by 30 times
>> that should make all these optimizations unnecessary.
>> As my boss used to tell me ... Good hardware always
> $ mount | wc -l
> 92
Wow.
> We've found that splitting the data up into more volumes + more cyrus
> instances seems to help as well because it seems to reduce overall
> contention points in the kernel + software (eg filesystem locks spread
> across multiple mounts, db locks are spread across mu
> On the other hand, XFS was the only Linux filesystems capable to handle our
> 5 million files (at that time, we're now at 33 million) we had in these
> days with an acceptable performance. Ext3 was way too slow with directories
> with > 1000 files (but many things have changed from kernel 2.4
> > I had the feeling whatever optimizations done at the FS level would give
> > us a max of 5-10% benefit.
> > We migrated from ext3 to reiserfs on our cyrus servers with 30k
> > mailboxes. I am not sure I saw a great benefit in terms of the iowait.
> > At peak times I always see a iowait of 40-6
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> Ext4, I never tried. Nor reiser3. I may have to, we will build a brand
> new Cyrus spool (small, just 5K users) next month, and the XFS unlink
> [lack of] performance worries me.
Nobody likes deletes. Even databases used to mark deleted space only as
"dele
> Ext4, I never tried. Nor reiser3. I may have to, we will build a brand
> new
> Cyrus spool (small, just 5K users) next month, and the XFS unlink
> [lack of] performance worries me.
>From what I can tell, all filesystems seem to have relatively poor unlink
performance and unlinks often cause
> Running multiple cyrus instances with different dbs ? How do we do that.
> I have seen the ultimate io-contention point is the mailboxes.db file.
> And that has to be single.
> Do you mean dividing the users to different cyrus instances. That is a
> maintenance issue IMHO.
As Bron said, yes it
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > I never really got the point of the data=writeback mode. Sure, it
> > increases throughput, but so does disabling the journal completely, and
> > seems to me the end result as concerns data integrity is exactly the
> > same.
>
> The *filesystem*
On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 11:46:41AM +0530, ram wrote:
> Running multiple cyrus instances with different dbs ? How do we do that.
> I have seen the ultimate io-contention point is the mailboxes.db file.
> And that has to be single.
Yeah, mailboxes.db access kinda sucks like that. If you're making
On Sat, 2009-01-03 at 13:21 +1100, Rob Mueller wrote:
> > Now see, I've had almost exactly the opposite experience. Reiserfs seemed
> > to
> > start out well and work consistently until the filesystem reached a
> > certain
> > size (around 160GB, ~30m files) at which point backing it up would s
> Now see, I've had almost exactly the opposite experience. Reiserfs seemed
> to
> start out well and work consistently until the filesystem reached a
> certain
> size (around 160GB, ~30m files) at which point backing it up would start
> to
> take too long and at around 180GB would take nearly
> Now from our experience, I can tell you that ext3 really does poorly on
> this workload compared to reiserfs. We had two exact same servers, one all
> reiserfs and one all ext3. The ext3 one started out ok, but over the course
> of a few weeks/months, it started getting worse and worse and was
>
On Fri, Jan 02, 2009 at 04:19:52PM +1100, Rob Mueller wrote:
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/6/17/9
Ahh, that week. *sigh*. Not strictly a reiserfs problem of course,
that would have affected everyone.
Speaking of which, Linus did point out in that thread that the way
Cyrus does IO (mmap for reads,
> There are /lots/ of (comparative) tests done: The most recent I could
> find with a quick Google is here:
>
> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ext4_benchmarks
Almost every filesystem benchmark I've ever seen is effectively useless for
comparing what's best for a cyrus mail se
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:47:31AM -0500, Nik Conwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > a scripted rename of mailboxes to balance partition utilization when
> > we
> > add another partition.
>
> Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mai
Nik Conwell wrote:
>
> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> a scripted rename of mailboxes to balance partition utilization when we
>> add another partition.
>
> Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes during
> the time they are being renamed an
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:47 +0100, LALOT Dominique wrote:
>> Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to
>> use a NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
>
> Personally, I'd never use NFS for anything.
Ah the saga of Hans Reiser. That unfortunately is the Downfall of
Reiserfs.
Yes, his company has disappeared, and a "void" has appeared from his
lack of presence?
However, the Reiserfs4 patch set is current against the linux kernel
2.6.28 (see
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 15:46 +0200, Janne Peltonen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:38:21AM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> > In regards to ext3 I'd pay attention to the vintage of problem reports
> > and performance issues; ext3 of several years ago is not the ext3 of
> > today, many improv
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 04:58:57AM -0800, Scott Likens wrote:
> I would not discount using reiserfs (v3) by any means. It's still by far a
> better choice for a filesystem with Cyrus then Ext3 or Ext4. I haven't really
> seen anyone do any tests with Ext4, but I imagine it should be about par for
У вт, 2008-12-30 у 17:49 +0100, LALOT Dominique пише:
> Once, there was a bad shutdown corrupting ext3fs and we spent 6 hours
> on an fsck.
Actually i do use reiserfs over 2 years on cyrus-imapd. It performs
great even with realy big count of files in imap spool folders. But i
dont know how it wi
On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 07:38:21AM -0500, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> In regards to ext3 I'd pay attention to the vintage of problem reports
> and performance issues; ext3 of several years ago is not the ext3 of
> today, many improvements have been made. "data=writeback" mode can help
> performa
> -- Nik Conwell is rumored to have mumbled on 31. Dezember 2008
> 07:47:31 -0500 regarding Re: choosing a file system:
>
> > Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
> > during the time they are being renamed and moved to another partition?
I
-- Nik Conwell is rumored to have mumbled on 31. Dezember 2008
07:47:31 -0500 regarding Re: choosing a file system:
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
during the time they are being renamed and moved to another partition?
I just do a grep on the username in the
Hi,
I would not discount using reiserfs (v3) by any means. It's still by
far a better choice for a filesystem with Cyrus then Ext3 or Ext4. I
haven't really seen anyone do any tests with Ext4, but I imagine it
should be about par for the course for Ext3.
as far as the NFS... NFS isn't i
On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:43 PM, Shawn Nock wrote:
[...]
> a scripted rename of mailboxes to balance partition utilization when
> we
> add another partition.
Just curious - how do stop people from accessing their mailboxes
during the time they are being renamed and moved to another partition?
On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:47 +0100, LALOT Dominique wrote:
> Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to
> use a NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
Personally, I'd never use NFS for anything. Over the years I've had way
to many NFS related problems
Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to use a
NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
I believe I'll look to ext4 that seemed to be available in last kernel, and
also to Solaris, but we are not enough to support another OS.
Dom
And Happy New Year
On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 02:43:14PM -0700, Shawn Nock wrote:
> Bron and the fastmail guys could tell you more about reiserfs... we've
> used RH&SuSE/reiserfs/EMC for quite a while and we are very happy.
Yeah, sure could :)
You can probably find plenty of stuff from me in the archives about our
set
LALOT Dominique wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN from EMC
> and thanks to our "DELL support" we are obliged to install redhat. The only
> option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old kernels. We have 4000 accounts
> for staff and 2 for stu
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, LALOT Dominique wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN from EMC
> and thanks to our "DELL support" we are obliged to install redhat. The only
> option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old kernels. We have 4000 accounts
> for st
John,
No, that was due to framentation. A fresh copy (one night to copy, then 2
hours to backup, 6 times faster then) solved that problem.
There's a filefrag utility, and for some mailboxes, it was over 60%. I have
3 500Mo spools at the moment. And one is left for the copy..
You copy first your d
Robert Banz wrote:
> At my last job, we had explored a Dell/EMC SAN at one point. Those
> folks don't seem to understand the idea that Fibre Channel is a well
> established standard -- they only expect you to connect their
> supported stack of hardware and software, otherwise they don't wanna
> t
We run Solaris 10 on our Cyrus mail-store backends.
The mail is stored in a ZFS pool. The ZFS pool are
composed of 4 SAN volumes in RAID-10. The active
and failover server of each backend pair have "fiber multipath"
enabled so their dual connections to the SAN switch ensure
that if an HBA or SAN
> Once, there was a bad shutdown corrupting ext3fs and we spent 6 hours on an
> fsck.
> Next we discovered that our backup system was going slower and slower. We
> just pointed out that it was due to fragmentation, and guess what, there's
> no online defrag tool for ext3.
Sure it isn't due to the
On Dec 30, 2008, at 9:06 AM, Pascal Gienger wrote:
> LALOT Dominique wrote:
>
>> zfs (but we should switch to solaris or freebsd and throw away our
>> costly
>> SAN)
>
> Why that? SAN volumes are running very fine with Solaris 10 hosts
> (SPARC
> and x86). You have extended multipathing (sym
LALOT Dominique wrote:
> zfs (but we should switch to solaris or freebsd and throw away our costly
> SAN)
Why that? SAN volumes are running very fine with Solaris 10 hosts (SPARC
and x86). You have extended multipathing (symmetric and asymmetric) onboard.
Solaris accepts nearly all Q-Logic FC c
On Dec 30, 2008, at 8:49 AM, LALOT Dominique wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN
> from EMC and thanks to our "DELL support" we are obliged to install
> redhat. The only option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old
> kernels. We have 4000
Hello,
We are using cyrus-imap for a long time. Our architecture is a SAN from EMC
and thanks to our "DELL support" we are obliged to install redhat. The only
option we have is to use ext3fs on rather old kernels. We have 4000 accounts
for staff and 2 for students
The system is rather fast and
66 matches
Mail list logo
