On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 19:11:42 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > mdbox? Is this a single file per mail folder?
> >
> > It's multiple mails per file and multiple files per mailbox.
> >
> > > The main reason I switched to maildir several decades ago was
> > > precisely the issues (by design) mbox
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 12:12 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 07:06:24 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all.
>> The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your
>> data, with mixed success. An obvious e
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 6:13:57 PM CEST Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:59:39 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > > Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I
> > > set up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be
> > > nearly as big.
> >
>
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 14:59:39 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > Although, I will also be switching to dovecot's mdbox format when I
> > set up my next server, so the issue of lots of small files won't be
> > nearly as big.
>
> mdbox? Is this a single file per mail folder?
It's multiple mails per f
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 07:06:24 -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> btrfs isn't horrible, but it basically hasn't been optimized at all.
> The developers are mainly focused on getting it to not destroy your
> data, with mixed success. An obvious example of this is that if you
> read a file from a pair of mi
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 11:28:08 AM CEST Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/6/2017, 2:12:00 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> > Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
> >
> > Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained
> > a
On Saturday, October 7, 2017 11:18:33 AM CEST Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 10/6/2017, 8:53:27 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> > 171005 christos kotsis wrote:
> >> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
> >> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.
> >
> > I've long relied on ReiserFS for e
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 6:28 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 05:18:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs
>> or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server?
>
> I tried btrfs on a mail server and i
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 05:18:33 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Anyone have any experience with comparing performance with either btrfs
> or ZFS against either ReiserFS or XFS for a maildir based mail server?
I tried btrfs on a mail server and it was unbearably slow. Disabling
copy-on-write made a big diff
On 10/6/2017, 2:12:00 PM, J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>
> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained
> a huge (millions) amount of files, > but having an fsck become
> impossible
On 10/6/2017, 8:53:27 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 171005 christos kotsis wrote:
>> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
>> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.
> I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except /boot
> & have never had any problems with my files or driv
Mick wrote:
> On Friday, 6 October 2017 19:12:00 BST J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
>> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
>> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>>
>> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained a huge
>> (millions) amount of files, but havin
On Friday, 6 October 2017 19:12:00 BST J. Roeleveld wrote:
> I had a large partition with reiserfs.
> Running fsck always failed due to running out of memory.
>
> Partition was quite a bit larger than 2TB (around 6TB) and contained a huge
> (millions) amount of files, but having an fsck become im
On 2017-10-06 20:12, J. Roeleveld wrote:
On 5 October 2017 22:45:50 GMT+02:00, christos kotsis
wrote:
I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance over ext3, 4
when
dealing with small files.
On 5 Oct 2017 11:32 pm, "christos kotsis"
wrote:
If the big data are used often,and I/O p
On 5 October 2017 22:45:50 GMT+02:00, christos kotsis
wrote:
>I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance over ext3, 4
>when
>dealing with small files.
>
>On 5 Oct 2017 11:32 pm, "christos kotsis"
>wrote:
>
>If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then I
>wo
On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 5:53 AM, Philip Webb wrote:
> 171005 christos kotsis wrote:
>> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
>> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.
>
> I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except /boot
> & have never had any problems with my files
171005 christos kotsis wrote:
> I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance
> over ext3, 4 when dealing with small files.
I've long relied on ReiserFS for everything except /boot
& have never had any problems with my files or drives.
I have many small files + a few big PDFs -- perhap
I just noticed that ReiserFS has significant performance over ext3, 4 when
dealing with small files.
On 5 Oct 2017 11:32 pm, "christos kotsis" wrote:
If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then I
would go for two partitions.
One would be either ext3 or ext4, with huge b
If the big data are used often,and I/O performance is desirable, then I
would go for two partitions.
One would be either ext3 or ext4, with huge block size, while the second
could be one of two with small block size(minimum 1024).
On 5 Oct 2017 10:46 pm, wrote:
Hi,
Installing gentoo on new lap
Hi,
Installing gentoo on new laptop and it has 2TB disk. I want to use 1.8TB
for data where will be big files and also huge amount of small files,
thus I want to ask which FS is best for this. Until now I've used
reiserfs on cca 0.5TB partition, but I don't know if it's also good
choice for t
20 matches
Mail list logo
