[aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP server)

[Jonathan Hall <jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Is ReiserFS reliable enough to trust mission-critical stuff to it yet?

Are any other Linux Journaling FSes that reliable yet?


On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 02:08:31PM -0500, Ryan Hunt wrote:
> 
> http://freshmeat.net/articles/view/212/
> 
> Thats what I used to make my desision..
> 
> ext3 has no advantages over ext2 except it journals..
> 
> -Ryan
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jonathan Hall" <jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <discussion@xxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 2:02 PM
> Subject: [aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and IMAP
> server)
> 
> 
> >
> > What's your experience/knowledge/opinion of ext3 as opposed to reiserfs?
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 01:53:28PM -0500, Ryan Hunt wrote:
> > >
> > > Mailservers harddrives must be verry durrable,
> > > I would put some SCSI harddrives in there, they dont have to be realy
> fast
> > > but they handle large loads of reading/writing much better than IDE, I
> would
> > > also go with a Journaling File system for faster performance and much
> faster
> > > boot times, I use ReiserFS but QMail needs to be patched
> > >  http://www.reiserfs.com/faq.html#qmail ) to prevent file corruption..
> > >
> > > -Ryan
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Dale W Hodge" <dwh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: <discussion@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:43 PM
> > > Subject: [aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3 and
> IMAP
> > > server)
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:discussion-bounce@xxxxxxxxx]On
> > > > > Behalf Of Jonathan Hall
> > > > > Sent: Friday, October 19, 2001 1:29 PM
> > > > > To: discussion@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Subject: [aclug-L] Re: MTAs & maildir vs mbox (was Re: Virtual POP3
> and
> > > > > IMAP server)
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I know sometimes what seems like common sense doesn't necissarily
> pan
> > > out in
> > > > > the real world...
> > > > >
> > > > > But isn't it faster to read (and then delete) a single large file
> rather
> > > > > than reading then deleting a number of small files?
> > > > >
> > > > > I put together a quick 'n dirty bash script to test this theory...
> altho
> > > I
> > > > > realize this isn't the same as a real-world MTA/POP3 style test...
> here
> > > are
> > > > > my results:
> > > > >
> > > > > (Test platform, if it matters to anyone, is Debian/Linux on a P133
> w/
> > > 64mb
> > > > > RAM and 6gb IDE HD)
> > > > > Real User Sys
> > > > > Creating 1000 10kb files (with dd): 14.725 7.330 7.200
> > > > > Deleting 1000 10kb files: 10.733 5.230 5.410
> > > > > Creating 1 10,000kb file (with dd): 0.893 0.080 0.740
> > > > > Deleting 1 10,000kb file: 0.102 0.050 0.050
> > > > > Creating 10,000kb file, 10kb at a time: 12.567 6.600 5.830
> > > > > Deleting 10,000kb file, 10kb at a time: After 14m51s I aborted this
> test
> > > > >
> > > > > The last test (deleting a partial file) is obviously where mbox
> suffers
> > > the
> > > > > greatest performance hit.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I don't think the mbox truely does an partial delete. I
> think it
> > > > merely copies the messages to a new file, skipping those parts marked
> for
> > > > deletion and then deletes the old file.  I can regularly purge a
> couple
> > > hundred
> > > > messages out of 1000 in less than 10 seconds.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --dwh
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > > Dale W Hodge - dwh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Secretary & Website Maintainer - info@xxxxxxxxx
> > > > Air Capital Linux User's Group  (ACLUG)
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> > > > visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
> > > >
> > >
> > > -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> > > visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
> >
> > --
> > --
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> >   Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx  *  PGP public key available
> >  Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (620) 367-2487
> >          http://www.futureks.net/  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
> >                   -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
> > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> > -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> > visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi
> >
> 
> -- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
> visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi

--
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@xxxxxxxxxxxx  *  PGP public key available
 Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (620) 367-2487
         http://www.futureks.net/  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
                  -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi