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
>> presumably all spam in their postmaster account (which was a catch
>> all). The new box defaults to "set no catch-all" for exactly this
>> kind of reason... 
> yup.
>> Here's the problem though: I saw a very significant drop in server
>> load when I deleted the hundreds of thousands of messages in that
>> one user account.
> 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 cleaned out in less than 10 minutes.
>> The server was apparently spending a lot of time dealing with
>> deliveries to this one very full mailbox. This concerns me a bit
>> since we're running IMAP now and I could see mailboxes with
>> thousands of legitimate messages building up over time, and would
>> not want to bog the system down if I have users that never delete
>> messages. 
>> Does anyone know of a way to alleviate this problem without forcing
>> quotas?
> 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.
> Some examples of non-ancient filesystems:
> reiserfs
> xfs
> -Jeremy

What version of reiserfs are you most comfortable using at the moment?


Reply via email to