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 comfortable using at the moment?
> >
>
> I run 3.6. It's still slow (mostly readdir()s from sqwebmail). It's
> not nearly as slow as, say, ext2, though.
>
> I do not recommend reiser4, of course, as it is not production-ready.
WingNET runs EXT3 on our primary mail server, which is a qmail+vpopmail
setup. It performs quite well for our relatively small mail server (couple
thousand boxes). We perform server-wide virus scanning on all incoming
and outgoing mail, and selective spam filtering for customers who pay
for it.
I just performed a FreeBSD -> Gentoo Linux switch on this mail server back on
Sept 23rd 2004. At that time, I also upgraded to a new chassis and disk
array and moved from a 500Mhz CPU to a 1Ghz CPU. The new CPU has
greatly helped keep our virus scanning CPU usage under control. Also,
more recently, ClamAV .80 has helped a lot too.
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 notation, I believe it's a O(N) operation for the number
of folders under your INBOX. If it's too slow, get a bigger CPU, or
more of them (think cluster).
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 that. We'll see. But until then I highly recommend EXT3.
--
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v) 423-559-5145 (f)
http://www.wingnet.net
