ext2/3 vs xfs for maildir
in [Debian]
|
From: Stan Hoeppner on 1 Jan 2010 11:00 Which filesystem is more appropriate for maildir use on a Postfix/Dovecot system, ext2/3 or xfs? This maildir will be storing mulitple mail folders and files, some folders containing over 10,000 email files. If xfs, what is the most appropriate mkfs.xfs command line for creating the filesystem best tuned for the above described maildir? I have no previous experience with xfs beyond reading about its superior performance for some workloads. Thanks much in advance. Happy new year all. -- Stan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Camaleón on 1 Jan 2010 11:10 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:51:23 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > Which filesystem is more appropriate for maildir use on a > Postfix/Dovecot system, ext2/3 or xfs? This maildir will be storing > mulitple mail folders and files, some folders containing over 10,000 > email files. How about ReiserFS? Despite not being very much actively developed upstream, it is still a very good filesystem, mainly for managing small files. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Volkan YAZICI on 1 Jan 2010 11:40 On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Camaleón <noelamac(a)gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:51:23 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> Which filesystem is more appropriate for maildir use on a >> Postfix/Dovecot system, ext2/3 or xfs? This maildir will be storing >> mulitple mail folders and files, some folders containing over 10,000 >> email files. > > How about ReiserFS? > > Despite not being very much actively developed upstream, it is still a > very good filesystem, mainly for managing small files. I strongly agree, even in recent ext4 and nilfs benchmarks, reiserfs is generally the winner in many different scenarious. Besides, XFS is very disappointing at power failures and ext2/3 requires huge amounts of rescan time during boot after an unexpected reboot. Regards. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Robert Brockway on 1 Jan 2010 15:50 On Fri, 1 Jan 2010, Volkan YAZICI wrote: > I strongly agree, even in recent ext4 and nilfs benchmarks, reiserfs is > generally the winner in many different scenarious. Besides, XFS is very > disappointing at power failures and ext2/3 requires huge amounts of There are reasons for the observed XFS behaviour. If a file becomes corrupt XFS zeros the file rather than leaving a corrupt file in place. There are pros and cons to this approach. In any case it is essential to always keep good backups. Rob -- I tried to change the world but they had a no-return policy http://www.practicalsysadmin.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org
From: Chris Davies on 2 Jan 2010 11:30
Volkan YAZICI <yazicivo(a)ttmail.com> wrote: > [...] ext2/3 requires huge amounts of rescan time during boot after > an unexpected reboot. Isn't the journal supposed to protect against this? IMO I don't see particularly long rescan times on the large-ish filesystem that I have (800 GB ext3 on lvm on top of hardware raid 5). What I do see is very slow disk access when using ext3 on lvm (approx 6 MB/s) - but I think that's a matter for another topic. Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org |