> Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> > On Tuesday 02 November 2004 1:55 pm, Casey Zacek wrote:
> >
> > I do *NOT*, under any circumstances, recommend reiserfs on a
> > production machine. One good system crash/power outage and
> you can kiss
> > your data good-bye. I know from personal experience. Reiserfs
On Wednesday 03 November 2004 5:00 am, Fabrizio Frosali - Impulso Srl wrote:
>
> >
> >I currently have a 2Gb personal maildir quota, and I'm currently using
> >1Gb. I use IMAP. Full IMAP subfolder queries ("check all folders for
> >new mail", etc...) are a CPU hog for large mailboxes, and changing
I currently have a 2Gb personal maildir quota, and I'm currently using
1Gb. I use IMAP. Full IMAP subfolder queries ("check all folders for
new mail", etc...) are a CPU hog for large mailboxes, and changing your
filesystem isn't going to help that much. For those of you familiar
with Big-O notatio
Jesse Guardiani wrote:
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 1:55 pm, Casey Zacek wrote:
I do *NOT*, under any circumstances, recommend reiserfs on a
production machine. One good system crash/power outage and you can kiss
your data good-bye. I know from personal experience. Reiserfs4 *may*
change all of tha
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 1:55 pm, Casey Zacek wrote:
> Jason Wilkinson wrote (at Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:24:24PM -0600):
> > >
> > > Some examples of non-ancient filesystems:
> > > reiserfs
> > > UFS with DIR_HASH
> > > xfs
> > >
> > > -Jeremy
> >
> > What version of reiserfs are you most com
Bill Wichers wrote:
use a non-ancient filesystem that doesn't slow down with more than a few
thousand files in a directory. I have 22000 emails in one imap folder on
my
server (and tens of thousands on other folders) and have zero slowdown
with
reiserfs.
Sounds like you have had good luck with r
Jason Wilkinson wrote (at Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 12:24:24PM -0600):
> >
> > Some examples of non-ancient filesystems:
> > reiserfs
> > UFS with DIR_HASH
> > xfs
> >
> > -Jeremy
>
> What version of reiserfs are you most comfortable using at the moment?
>
I run 3.6. It's still slow (mostly readdi
> in fact, you'd probably see a huge decrease in load simply by removing the
> catchall. One of our customers had, I estimated (simply by how long it
> took
> to remove the directory) over 15 million emails in their catchall account.
> I
> disabled the catchall and their 200k message queue cleane
Jeremy Kitchen wrote:
> On Tuesday 02 November 2004 11:21 am, Bill Wichers wrote:
>> I recently have been moving user domains from an old qmail+vpopmail
>> server to a new one due in large part to hugely increased spam
>> filter load (grumble). Anyway, I found one user with some 5+ GB of
>> presuma
On Tuesday 02 November 2004 11:21 am, Bill Wichers wrote:
> I recently have been moving user domains from an old qmail+vpopmail server
> to a new one due in large part to hugely increased spam filter load
> (grumble). Anyway, I found one user with some 5+ GB of presumably all spam
> in their postma
Bill Wichers wrote:
I recently have been moving user domains from an old qmail+vpopmail server
to a new one due in large part to hugely increased spam filter load
(grumble). Anyway, I found one user with some 5+ GB of presumably all spam
in their postmaster account (which was a catch all). The new
11 matches
Mail list logo
