Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS + Dovecot
On 6/20/2012 10:50 AM, Romer Ventura wrote: Has anyone used GlusterFS as storage file system for dovecot or any other email system? I have not, but can tell you from experience and education that distributed filesystems don't work well with transactional workloads such as IMAP and SMTP. The two reasons are high latency and problems with file locking, as Timo mentioned. Instead of asking if anyone here has tried to use GlusterFS, why not describe your situation and ask for advice on a solution? That usually works much better, and you gain valuable insight. -- Stan
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS + Dovecot
Am 20.06.2012 17:50, schrieb Romer Ventura: Hello, Has anyone used GlusterFS as storage file system for dovecot or any other email system..? It says that it can be presented as a NFS, CIFS and as GlusterFS using the native client, technically using the client would allow the machine to read and write to it, therefore, I think that Dovecot would not care about it. Correct? Anyone out there used this setup?? Thanks. reading the faqs i wouldnt recommend it yet, but as Timo said try with performance tests first -- Best Regards MfG Robert Schetterer
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS + Dovecot
We've considered using gluster for our mail storage a month ago. I've seen index corruption even if mail was delivered by lmtp sequentially some split-brains with no clear reason with more than 2000 mails in box we had to wait for 40sec to open mailbox through roundcube, so we've decided to go for dsync replication instead with common mysql database for user storage and imap/pop3/lmtp proxy. -Original Message- From: dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org [mailto:dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org] On Behalf Of Romer Ventura Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:51 AM To: dovecot@dovecot.org Subject: [Dovecot] GlusterFS + Dovecot Hello, Has anyone used GlusterFS as storage file system for dovecot or any other email system..? It says that it can be presented as a NFS, CIFS and as GlusterFS using the native client, technically using the client would allow the machine to read and write to it, therefore, I think that Dovecot would not care about it. Correct? Anyone out there used this setup?? Thanks.
[Dovecot] GlusterFS + Dovecot
Hello, Has anyone used GlusterFS as storage file system for dovecot or any other email system..? It says that it can be presented as a NFS, CIFS and as GlusterFS using the native client, technically using the client would allow the machine to read and write to it, therefore, I think that Dovecot would not care about it. Correct? Anyone out there used this setup?? Thanks.
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS + Dovecot
On 20.6.2012, at 18.50, Romer Ventura wrote: Has anyone used GlusterFS as storage file system for dovecot or any other email system..? I've heard Dovecot complains about index corruption once in a while with glusterfs, even when not in multi-master mode. I wouldn't use it without some heavy stress testing first (with imaptest tool).
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
On 2010-02-17, Ed W li...@wildgooses.com wrote: Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) We´ve been using IBM´s GPFS filesystem on (currently) seven x-series servers running RHEL4 and RHEL5, all SAN-attached all serving the same filesystem for probably 4 years now. This systems serves POP/IMAP/Webmail to ~700.000 mail accounts. Webmail is sticky, while POP/IMAP is being distributed over all the servers by HAproxy. It´s been working very well. There´s been some minor issues with dovecots locking that forced us to be less parallell in the deliveries than we wanted to, but that´s probably our own fault for being quite back-level on dovecot. The biggest pain is doing file backups of the maildirs... -jf
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
I use GlusterFS with Dovecot and it works without issues. The GlusterFS team has made huge progress since 2.0 and with the new 3.0 version they have again proved that GlusterFS can get better. You have kindly shared some details of your config before - care to update us on what you are using now, how much storage, how many deliveries/hour, IOPS, etc? Lots of stuff was quite hard work for you back with Glusterfs v2, what kind of stuff did you need to work around with v3? (I can't believe it worked out of the box!) Any notes for users with small office sized setups (ie 2 servers' ish). I presume you use gentoo on your gluster machines? Do you run gluster only on the storage machines or do you virtualise and use the spare CPU to run other services? (given the price of electricity it seems a shame not to load servers up these days...) Thanks Ed W
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Sure .. but you can break the index files in exactly the same way as with NFS. :) That is right :) For us, all the front end exim servers pass their mail to a single final delivery server. It was done so that we didn't have all the front end servers needing to mount the storage. It also means that if we need to stop local delivery for any reason we're only stopping one exim server. The NFS issue is resolved (I think/hope) by having the front end load balancer use persistent connections to the dovecot servers. All I can say is we've used dovecot since it was a little nipper and have never had any issues with indexes. Regards John www.netserve.co.uk
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:25:46 -0600 Von: Eric Rostetter rostet...@mail.utexas.edu An: dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? Quoting Ed W li...@wildgooses.com: Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) GFS2 over DRBD in an active-active setup works fine IMHO. Not perfect, but it was cheap and works well... Let's me reboot machines with no downtime which was one of my main goals when implementing it... My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use GFS+DRBD should fit the bill... You need several nics and cables, but they are dirt cheap... Just 2 machines with the same disk setup, and a handful of nics and cables, and you are off and running... Can you easy scale that GFS2+DRBD to have more then just 2 nodes? Is it possible to aggregate the speed when using many nodes? Can all the nodes at the same time be active or is one node always the master and the other a hot spare that kicks in when the master is down? Thanks Ed W -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Steve stev...@gmx.net wrote: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:15:30 +0100 Von: alex handle alex.han...@gmail.com An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use we use drbd with ext3 in a active/passive setup for more than 1 mailboxes. works like a charm! I'm not really trusting cluster filesystems and most cluster filesystems are not made for small files. I use GlusterFS with Dovecot and it works without issues. The GlusterFS team has made huge progress since 2.0 and with the new 3.0 version they have again proved that GlusterFS can get better. Alex Steve Hi Steve, I was wondering if perhaps I might snag a copy of your glusterfs server/client configs to see what you are doing? I am interested in using it in our mail setup, but last I tried a little over a month ago I got a bunch of corrupted mails, so far I am only using for a web cluster and that seems to be working but different use case I guess. Thanks! Brandon
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 08:36:36 -0800 Von: Brandon Lamb brandonl...@gmail.com An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Steve stev...@gmx.net wrote: Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:15:30 +0100 Von: alex handle alex.han...@gmail.com An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use we use drbd with ext3 in a active/passive setup for more than 1 mailboxes. works like a charm! I'm not really trusting cluster filesystems and most cluster filesystems are not made for small files. I use GlusterFS with Dovecot and it works without issues. The GlusterFS team has made huge progress since 2.0 and with the new 3.0 version they have again proved that GlusterFS can get better. Alex Steve Hi Steve, I was wondering if perhaps I might snag a copy of your glusterfs server/client configs to see what you are doing? I am interested in using it in our mail setup, but last I tried a little over a month ago I got a bunch of corrupted mails, so far I am only using for a web cluster and that seems to be working but different use case I guess. Server part: volume gfs-srv-ds type storage/posix option directory /mnt/glusterfs/mailstore01 end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-locks type features/locks option mandatory-locks off subvolumes gfs-srv-ds end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-remote type protocol/client option transport-type tcp # option username # option password option remote-host 192.168.0.142 option remote-port 6998 option frame-timeout 600 option ping-timeout 10 option remote-subvolume gfs-srv-ds-locks end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-replicate type cluster/replicate option data-self-heal on option metadata-self-heal on option entry-self-heal on # option read-subvolume gfs-srv-ds-locks # option favorite-child option data-change-log on option metadata-change-log on option entry-change-log on option data-lock-server-count 1 option metadata-lock-server-count 1 option entry-lock-server-count 1 subvolumes gfs-srv-ds-locks gfs-srv-ds-remote end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-io-threads type performance/io-threads option thread-count 16 subvolumes gfs-srv-ds-replicate end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-write-back type performance/write-behind option cache-size 64MB option flush-behind on # opiton disable-for-first-nbytes 1 # option enable-O_SYNC false subvolumes gfs-srv-ds-io-threads end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-io-cache type performance/io-cache option cache-size 32MB option priority *:0 option cache-timeout 2 subvolumes gfs-srv-ds-write-back end-volume volume gfs-srv-ds-server type protocol/server option transport-type tcp option transport.socket.listen-port 6998 option auth.addr.gfs-srv-ds-locks.allow 192.168.0.*,127.0.0.1 option auth.addr.gfs-srv-ds-io-threads.allow 192.168.0.*,127.0.0.1 option auth.addr.gfs-srv-ds-io-cache.allow 192.168.0.*,127.0.0.1 subvolumes gfs-srv-ds-io-cache end-volume Client part: volume gfs-cli-ds-client type protocol/client option transport-type tcp # option remote-host gfs-vu-mailstore-c01.vunet.local option remote-host 127.0.0.1 option remote-port 6998 option frame-timeout 600 option ping-timeout 10 option remote-subvolume gfs-srv-ds-io-cache end-volume #volume gfs-cli-ds-write-back # type performance/write-behind # option cache-size 64MB # option flush-behind on # # opiton disable-for-first-nbytes 1 # # option enable-O_SYNC false # subvolumes gfs-cli-ds-client #end-volume #volume gfs-cli-ds-io-cache # type performance/io-cache # option cache-size 32MB # option priority *:0 # option cache-timeout 1 # subvolumes gfs-cli-ds-write-back #end-volume Thanks! Brandon -- Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Quoting Steve stev...@gmx.net: My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use GFS+DRBD should fit the bill... You need several nics and cables, but they are dirt cheap... Just 2 machines with the same disk setup, and a handful of nics and cables, and you are off and running... Can you easy scale that GFS2+DRBD to have more then just 2 nodes? Is Not really, no. You can have those two nodes distribute it out via gnbd though... Red Hat claims it scales well, but I've not yet tested it... Can all the nodes at the same time be active or is one node always the master and the other a hot spare that kicks in when the master is down? The free version of DRBD only supports max 2 nodes. They can be active-active or active-passive. The non-free version is supposed to support 3 nodes, but I've heard conflicting reports on what the 3rd node can do... You'd have to investigate that yourself... I'm not interested in it, since I don't want to pay for it... (Though I am willing to donate to the project) My proposed solution to the more-than-two-nodes is gnbd... If that doesn't meet your needs, then DRBD probably isn't the proper choice. You didn't mention anything about number of nodes in your original post, IIRC. Thanks Ed W -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns!
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 13:51:33 -0600 Von: Eric Rostetter rostet...@mail.utexas.edu An: dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? Quoting Steve stev...@gmx.net: My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use GFS+DRBD should fit the bill... You need several nics and cables, but they are dirt cheap... Just 2 machines with the same disk setup, and a handful of nics and cables, and you are off and running... Can you easy scale that GFS2+DRBD to have more then just 2 nodes? Is Not really, no. You can have those two nodes distribute it out via gnbd though... Red Hat claims it scales well, but I've not yet tested it... I have already installed GFS on a cluster in the past, but never on DRBD. Can all the nodes at the same time be active or is one node always the master and the other a hot spare that kicks in when the master is down? The free version of DRBD only supports max 2 nodes. They can be active-active or active-passive. The non-free version is supposed to support 3 nodes, but I've heard conflicting reports on what the 3rd node can do... You'd have to investigate that yourself... I'm not interested in it, since I don't want to pay for it... (Though I am willing to donate to the project) Hmm... when I started with GlusterFS I thought that using more then two nodes is something that I will never need. But now that I have GlusterFS up and running and I am using more then two nodes I really see a benefit in being able to use more then two nodes. For me this is a big advantage of GlusterFS compared to DRBD. My proposed solution to the more-than-two-nodes is gnbd... Never heard of it before. Don't like the fact that I need to patch the Kernel in order to get it working. If that doesn't meet your needs, then DRBD probably isn't the proper choice. You didn't mention anything about number of nodes in your original post, IIRC. I did not post the original post. I just responded to the original post saying that GlusterFS works for me. Thanks Ed W -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- NEU: Mit GMX DSL über 1000,- ¿ sparen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Quoting Steve stev...@gmx.net: I have already installed GFS on a cluster in the past, but never on DRBD. Me too (I did in on a real physical SAN before). Hmm... when I started with GlusterFS I thought that using more then two nodes is something that I will never need. GlusterFS is really designed to allow such things... So is GFS. But these are filesystems... DRBD isn't really designed to scale this way. A SAN or NAS is. But now that I have GlusterFS up and running and I am using more then two nodes I really see a benefit in being able to use more then two nodes. For me this is a big advantage of GlusterFS compared to DRBD. You are comparing filesystems to storage/mirroring systems. Not a valid comparison... My proposed solution to the more-than-two-nodes is gnbd... Never heard of it before. Don't like the fact that I need to patch the Kernel in order to get it working. GNDB is a standard part of GFS. No more patching than GFS or DRBD in any case... Red Hat and clones all come with support for GFS and GNDB built in. DRBD is another issue... GNDB should be known to anyone using GFS, since it is part of the standard reading (manual, etc) for GFS. If that doesn't meet your needs, then DRBD probably isn't the proper choice. You didn't mention anything about number of nodes in your original post, IIRC. I did not post the original post. I just responded to the original post saying that GlusterFS works for me. I didn't mean to single you out in my reply... Assume the you is a generic you, not specifically aimed at any one individual... Sorry if I miss-attributed anything to you... Very busy, and trying to reply to these emails as fast as I can when I get a minute or two of time, so I may make some mistakes as to who said what... I'm not trying to convert or convince any one... I'm just replying and expressing my experiences and thoughts... If glusterfs works for you, then great. If not, there are alternatives... I happen to champion some, others champion others... Personally, I like SAN storage, but the price has always kept me from using it (except once, when I was setting it up on someone else's SAN). -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns!
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Dare I ask...(as it's not exactly clear from the Gluster docs) If I take 5 storage servers to house my /mail can my cluster of 5 front end dovecot servers all mount/read/write to /mail. The reason I ask is the docs seem to suggest I should be doing 5 servers, having 5 partitions, one for each mail server? Any clues? Regards John
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:32:46 + Von: John Lyons j...@support.nsnoc.com An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? Dare I ask...(as it's not exactly clear from the Gluster docs) If I take 5 storage servers to house my /mail can my cluster of 5 front end dovecot servers all mount/read/write to /mail. Yes. That's the beauty of GlusterFS. The reason I ask is the docs seem to suggest I should be doing 5 servers, having 5 partitions, one for each mail server? You can do that. But with GlusterFS and Dovecot you don't need to. You can mount read/write the same GlusterFS share on all the mail servers. Dovecot will usually add the hostname of the delivering system into the maildir file name. As long as the delivery is collision free in terms of file names then you can scale up as many read/write nodes you like. Any clues? Regards John Steve -- NEU: Mit GMX DSL über 1000,- ¿ sparen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/dsl02
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
On 19.2.2010, at 0.37, Steve wrote: You can do that. But with GlusterFS and Dovecot you don't need to. You can mount read/write the same GlusterFS share on all the mail servers. Dovecot will usually add the hostname of the delivering system into the maildir file name. As long as the delivery is collision free in terms of file names then you can scale up as many read/write nodes you like. This has the same problems as with NFS (assuming the servers aren't only delivering mails, without updating index files). http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 03:02:48 +0200 Von: Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? On 19.2.2010, at 0.37, Steve wrote: You can do that. But with GlusterFS and Dovecot you don't need to. You can mount read/write the same GlusterFS share on all the mail servers. Dovecot will usually add the hostname of the delivering system into the maildir file name. As long as the delivery is collision free in terms of file names then you can scale up as many read/write nodes you like. This has the same problems as with NFS (assuming the servers aren't only delivering mails, without updating index files). http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS Except that NFS is not so flexible as GlusterFS. In GlusterFS I can replicate, stripe, aggregate, etc... All things that I can't do with NFS. -- Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 03:12 +0100, Steve wrote: This has the same problems as with NFS (assuming the servers aren't only delivering mails, without updating index files). http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS Except that NFS is not so flexible as GlusterFS. In GlusterFS I can replicate, stripe, aggregate, etc... All things that I can't do with NFS. Sure .. but you can break the index files in exactly the same way as with NFS. :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:37:04 +0200 Von: Timo Sirainen t...@iki.fi An: dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 03:12 +0100, Steve wrote: This has the same problems as with NFS (assuming the servers aren't only delivering mails, without updating index files). http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS Except that NFS is not so flexible as GlusterFS. In GlusterFS I can replicate, stripe, aggregate, etc... All things that I can't do with NFS. Sure .. but you can break the index files in exactly the same way as with NFS. :) That is right :) -- Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
[Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
GlusterFs always strikes me as being the solution (one day...). It's had a lot of growing pains, but there have been a few on the list had success using it already. Given some time has gone by since I last asked - has anyone got any more recent experience with it and how has it worked out with particular emphasis on Dovecot maildir storage? How has version 3 worked out for you? Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use Thanks Ed W
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use we use drbd with ext3 in a active/passive setup for more than 1 mailboxes. works like a charm! I'm not really trusting cluster filesystems and most cluster filesystems are not made for small files. Alex
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Original-Nachricht Datum: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:15:30 +0100 Von: alex handle alex.han...@gmail.com An: Dovecot Mailing List dovecot@dovecot.org Betreff: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports? Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use we use drbd with ext3 in a active/passive setup for more than 1 mailboxes. works like a charm! I'm not really trusting cluster filesystems and most cluster filesystems are not made for small files. I use GlusterFS with Dovecot and it works without issues. The GlusterFS team has made huge progress since 2.0 and with the new 3.0 version they have again proved that GlusterFS can get better. Alex Steve -- Sicherer, schneller und einfacher. Die aktuellen Internet-Browser - jetzt kostenlos herunterladen! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/chbrowser
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFs - Any new progress reports?
Quoting Ed W li...@wildgooses.com: Anyone had success using some other clustered/HA filestore with dovecot who can share their experience? (OCFS/GFS over DRBD, etc?) GFS2 over DRBD in an active-active setup works fine IMHO. Not perfect, but it was cheap and works well... Let's me reboot machines with no downtime which was one of my main goals when implementing it... My interest is more in bootstrapping a more highly available system from lower quality (commodity) components than very high end use GFS+DRBD should fit the bill... You need several nics and cables, but they are dirt cheap... Just 2 machines with the same disk setup, and a handful of nics and cables, and you are off and running... Thanks Ed W -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns!
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS
I was afraid somebody was going to say that. Thanks for your reply, I'll try that sometime later this week. I'll report back how it all went. Kind regards, Jeroen Koekkoek -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Aria Stewart Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 6:32 PM To: Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS On Aug 11, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Jeroen Koekkoek wrote: I receive the following error message. Aug 7 09:38:51 mta2 dovecot: POP3([EMAIL PROTECTED]): nfs_flush_fcntl: fcntl(/var/vmail/domain.tld/somebody/Maildir/dovecot.index, F_RDLCK) failed: Function not implemented Dovecot tries to flush kernel's data cache. You might need volume plocks type features/posix-locks subvolumes posix end-volume Or equivalent in your glusterfs configuration I think that I can disable mail_nfs_index to fix these messages. Has anybody had the same problem, if so, how did you solve it? You could disable mail_nfs_index, but that if the same mailbox is accessed concurrently from multiple servers that will probably cause index corruption. Aria Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS
From: Ed W [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2008 11:09 AM I'm also interested to hear how it works out? It appears that the straightline speed is high for gluster, but it's per file performance has enough overhead that it's a signficant problem for maildir type applications which manipulate lots of small files? Possibly it works very well if you go mbox though? FUSE kernel driver from 2.6.24 was unusable. Fuse client saw changed file modes ie: from 640 to 666. With fuse driver delivered with glusterfs file modes were the same as on exporting server. It was performing very well when clients were moving some large files, but when it comes to mail traffic wait time and system load on client nodes started increasing. At last glusterfs stop working due segfault in io-cache.so or libglusterfs.so. Mail nodes were using glusterfs-1.3.7 and fuse-2.7.2glfs8, mail was delivered into maildirs Pawel.
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS
On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Jeroen Koekkoek wrote: I receive the following error message. Aug 7 09:38:51 mta2 dovecot: POP3([EMAIL PROTECTED]): nfs_flush_fcntl: fcntl(/var/vmail/domain.tld/somebody/Maildir/dovecot.index, F_RDLCK) failed: Function not implemented Dovecot tries to flush kernel's data cache. I think that I can disable mail_nfs_index to fix these messages. Has anybody had the same problem, if so, how did you solve it? You could disable mail_nfs_index, but that if the same mailbox is accessed concurrently from multiple servers that will probably cause index corruption. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS
On Aug 11, 2008, at 10:22 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote: On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:57 AM, Jeroen Koekkoek wrote: I receive the following error message. Aug 7 09:38:51 mta2 dovecot: POP3([EMAIL PROTECTED]): nfs_flush_fcntl: fcntl(/var/vmail/domain.tld/somebody/Maildir/dovecot.index, F_RDLCK) failed: Function not implemented Dovecot tries to flush kernel's data cache. You might need volume plocks type features/posix-locks subvolumes posix end-volume Or equivalent in your glusterfs configuration I think that I can disable mail_nfs_index to fix these messages. Has anybody had the same problem, if so, how did you solve it? You could disable mail_nfs_index, but that if the same mailbox is accessed concurrently from multiple servers that will probably cause index corruption. Aria Stewart [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS
Pawel Panek wrote: We use a Dovecot setup with GlusterFS. Dovecot 1.1.2 and GlusterFS OT: beside fcntl problem, how is GlusterFS doing for you? I have some miserable remarks using GlusterFS and FUSE. What about your experience? I'm also interested to hear how it works out? It appears that the straightline speed is high for gluster, but it's per file performance has enough overhead that it's a signficant problem for maildir type applications which manipulate lots of small files? Possibly it works very well if you go mbox though? Ed W
Re: [Dovecot] GlusterFS
We use a Dovecot setup with GlusterFS. Dovecot 1.1.2 and GlusterFS OT: beside fcntl problem, how is GlusterFS doing for you? I have some miserable remarks using GlusterFS and FUSE. What about your experience? Pawel
