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