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

[gLaNDix <glandix@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Jonathan Hall wrote:

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

i believe so

>
> Are any other Linux Journaling FSes that reliable yet?

from the article mentioned below, it sounds like XFS should be too
(infact, the article has convinced me to give XFS another look... sounds
very interesting and possible more stable than ReiserFS)..

gLaNDix

>
> 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
>

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://tmp2.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi