FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-11-2008, 09:10 PM
Eric Persson
 
Default Best fs for imapserver?

I'm looking to improve the performance on one of our imap-servers since
its getting slow on large folders with 100k or more files in them. The
imapserver is courier imap(using maildir format), and I'll hope to keep
that as of now.


However, I read that reiserfs was more efficient than ext3 handling lots
of small files, which sounds like a good choice for this application.
But is there other options? Is reiserfs the best choice?


Hints, personal experience, feedback would be interesting..

/eric


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-12-2008, 08:37 AM
Jörg-Volker Peetz
 
Default Best fs for imapserver?

Eric Persson wrote:
I'm looking to improve the performance on one of our imap-servers since
its getting slow on large folders with 100k or more files in them. The
imapserver is courier imap(using maildir format), and I'll hope to keep
that as of now.


However, I read that reiserfs was more efficient than ext3 handling lots
of small files, which sounds like a good choice for this application.
But is there other options? Is reiserfs the best choice?


Hints, personal experience, feedback would be interesting..

/eric



These links may be a little bit out-dated and I hope someone else can supplement
them:


Filesystems (ext3, reiser, xfs, jfs) comparison on Debian Etch
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/388

Benchmarking Filesystems Part II LG #122
http://linuxgazette.net/122/piszcz.html

Filesystems comparison using kernel build
http://www.bullopensource.org/ext4/kernbuild/index.php

--
Regards,
Jörg-Volker.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-18-2008, 10:34 PM
"Todd A. Jacobs"
 
Default Best fs for imapserver?

On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:10:42PM +0200, Eric Persson wrote:

> I'm looking to improve the performance on one of our imap-servers
> since its getting slow on large folders with 100k or more files in

I'm not sure this is as true as it used to be, especially if you're
using ext3 with dir_index enabled. Still, XFS is highly optimized for
large files/directories, and my empirical experience is that it is the
best overall filesystem unless one has special considerations such as
full-data journaling or RAM/CPU constraints.

> However, I read that reiserfs was more efficient than ext3 handling
> lots of small files, which sounds like a good choice for this

ReiserFS is more efficient at handling small files because of
tail-packing, but you sometimes pay for that space efficiency with speed
as reiserfs3 does a lot of continuous shuffling of its hash tree. I've
also found reiserfs3 to be less reliable on my systems when compared to
XFS. YMMV.

--
"Oh, look: rocks!"
-- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-19-2008, 12:52 AM
Alex Samad
 
Default Best fs for imapserver?

On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:34:58PM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:10:42PM +0200, Eric Persson wrote:
>
> > I'm looking to improve the performance on one of our imap-servers
> > since its getting slow on large folders with 100k or more files in
>
> I'm not sure this is as true as it used to be, especially if you're
> using ext3 with dir_index enabled. Still, XFS is highly optimized for
> large files/directories, and my empirical experience is that it is the
> best overall filesystem unless one has special considerations such as
> full-data journaling or RAM/CPU constraints.

There has alway been talk that if you use xfs make sure you have a ups
as well.


I use XFS, like it for my large partitions and I have a ups

>
> > However, I read that reiserfs was more efficient than ext3 handling
> > lots of small files, which sounds like a good choice for this
>
> ReiserFS is more efficient at handling small files because of
> tail-packing, but you sometimes pay for that space efficiency with speed
> as reiserfs3 does a lot of continuous shuffling of its hash tree. I've
> also found reiserfs3 to be less reliable on my systems when compared to
> XFS. YMMV.
>
> --
> "Oh, look: rocks!"
> -- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>

--
"I was raised in the West. The West of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California. "

- George W. Bush
04/08/2000
Los Angeles, CA
in Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times
 
Old 08-19-2008, 05:44 AM
Aniruddha
 
Default Best fs for imapserver?

On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 10:52 +1000, Alex Samad wrote:
> There has alway been talk that if you use xfs make sure you have a ups
> as well.
>
>
> I use XFS, like it for my large partitions and I have a ups

The reasoning behind this is that an unclean shutdown can cause severe
data loss. Strangely enough I can't find any information about his
'feature', all I found was:

> Disadvantages
> There is no undelete utility for XFS
> An XFS file system cannot be shrunk
> Creation and deletion of directory entries is a much slower metadata
> operation than other file systems. Simon Kongshøj. "Filesystem
> performance tweaking with XFS on Linux".
> Failure-handling policies can be improved [2]
> The use of XFS file systems on LVM2 logical volumes can cause system
> freezes under Linux based operating systems if the kernel is compiled
> with option CONFIG_4KSTACKS enabled [3]. This happens when the system
> is under high disk I/O and require more than 4kB of thread stack.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xfs

Anyhow I recommend using ext3 tuned for performance since reliability is
as much important for a mailserver as is speed. For ext3 optimization
tips look here:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-305871-highlight-ext3+optimize
+optimize.html




Regards,


Aniruddha





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
 
Old 08-19-2008, 12:13 PM
Jochen Schulz
 
Default Best fs for imapserver?

Aniruddha:
>
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-305871-highlight-ext3+optimize
> +optimize.html

ITYM http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=305871

J.
--
No-one appears to be able to help me.
[Agree] [Disagree]
<http://www.slowlydownward.com/NODATA/data_enter2.html>
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:45 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org