Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Best file system

Expand Messages
  • Cami
    ... Wasn t there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its spool/queues? Cami
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Lee Hetherington wrote:
      >
      >>> Hi,
      >>>
      >>> I'm setting up a new postfix server with SATA RAID. And I wonder what
      >>> the best file system would be? RAID1 with two 250 gigabyte drives.
      >>>
      >>> I've had so many recommendations, and I'm not experienced enough to
      >>> make the call myself.
      >>>
      >>> So, any suggestions?
      >
      > I use ext3 with the noatime flag set

      Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that
      setting noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which
      Postfix keeps its spool/queues?

      Cami
    • Justin Krejci
      ... Here is our ideal setup. We generally use two raid volumes. 4 Disks doing RAID10 for / (reiser with noatime) 2 Disks doing RAID1 for /var/log (reiser) We
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Wednesday 01 February 2006 05:11 am, ann@... wrote:
        > Hi,
        >
        > I'm setting up a new postfix server with SATA RAID. And I wonder what
        > the best file system would be? RAID1 with two 250 gigabyte drives.
        >
        > I've had so many recommendations, and I'm not experienced enough to
        > make the call myself.
        >
        > So, any suggestions?

        Here is our ideal setup.
        We generally use two raid volumes.
        4 Disks doing RAID10 for / (reiser with noatime)
        2 Disks doing RAID1 for /var/log (reiser)

        We process thousands of e-mails per server per day and found this to be pretty
        efficient. Our compressed mail log files usually end up over 100megs per day.
      • Ralf Hildebrandt
        ... Huh? We ve been using that for years now... -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de) spamtrap@charite.de Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb
        Message 3 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          * Cami <camis@...>:

          > Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting
          > noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its
          > spool/queues?

          Huh? We've been using that for years now...

          --
          Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hildebrandt@...) spamtrap@...
          Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb und Wartung Tel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155
          http://www.postfix-buch.com
          llama would be a more fitting name for OpenLDAP:
          It's big, stubborn and spits in your face when you need it the most.
        • Lee Hetherington
          ... Me also. I manage a relay cluster for an ISP which uses that setup and delivers a large amount of email. They use home-built linux boxes which large mail
          Message 4 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:

            >* Cami <camis@...>:
            >
            >
            >
            >>Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting
            >>noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its
            >>spool/queues?
            >>
            >>
            >
            >Huh? We've been using that for years now...
            >
            >
            >
            Me also. I manage a relay cluster for an ISP which uses that setup and
            delivers a large amount of email. They use home-built linux boxes which
            large mail volumes very often screw IDE hard disks up (But im sure thats
            just because they are crappy IDE disks). But my setup is using U320 SCSI
            disks with ext3 and noatime, which has worked well for 3 years now.

            I always read that noatime was the way to go...
          • lst_hoe01@kwsoft.de
            ... It is only a problem in some circumstances :
            Message 5 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Zitat von Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...>:

              > * Cami <camis@...>:
              >
              >> Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting
              >> noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its
              >> spool/queues?
              >
              > Huh? We've been using that for years now...

              It is only a problem in some circumstances :

              http://groups.google.com/group/list.postfix.users/browse_thread/thread/c9841ed9a7040555/bbf685475eadab94?q=noatime&rnum=2#bbf685475eadab94

              Regards

              Andreas
            • Cami
              ... Unless i m reading that thread incorrectly, its a problem in most circumstances since by default: fast_flush_domains = $relay_domains Or am i missing
              Message 6 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                lst_hoe01@... wrote:
                > Zitat von Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...>:
                >
                >> * Cami <camis@...>:
                >>
                >>> Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting
                >>> noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its
                >>> spool/queues?
                >>
                >> Huh? We've been using that for years now...
                >
                > It is only a problem in some circumstances :
                >
                > http://groups.google.com/group/list.postfix.users/browse_thread/thread/c9841ed9a7040555/bbf685475eadab94?q=noatime&rnum=2#bbf685475eadab94

                Unless i'm reading that thread incorrectly, its
                a problem in most circumstances since by default:

                fast_flush_domains = $relay_domains

                Or am i missing something?

                Cami
              • lst_hoe01@kwsoft.de
                ... As far as i understand you also need some amoumt of deferred mail for this beeing a problem as the mail don t really get deferred with noatime mounts.
                Message 7 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Zitat von Cami <camis@...>:

                  > lst_hoe01@... wrote:
                  >> Zitat von Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...>:
                  >>
                  >>> * Cami <camis@...>:
                  >>>
                  >>>> Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting
                  >>>> noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its
                  >>>> spool/queues?
                  >>>
                  >>> Huh? We've been using that for years now...
                  >>
                  >> It is only a problem in some circumstances :
                  >>
                  >> http://groups.google.com/group/list.postfix.users/browse_thread/thread/c9841ed9a7040555/bbf685475eadab94?q=noatime&rnum=2#bbf685475eadab94
                  >
                  > Unless i'm reading that thread incorrectly, its
                  > a problem in most circumstances since by default:
                  >
                  > fast_flush_domains = $relay_domains
                  >
                  > Or am i missing something?

                  As far as i understand you also need some amoumt of deferred mail for
                  this beeing a problem as the mail don't really get deferred with
                  "noatime" mounts.
                  But for sure Wietse or Victor can clear this issue.

                  Regards

                  Andreas
                • Cami
                  ... At some point in time, service breaks cause outages and you ll land up having (deferred) queues sooner or later. Having noatime set causes Postfix to
                  Message 8 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    lst_hoe01@... wrote:
                    > Zitat von Cami <camis@...>:
                    >
                    >> lst_hoe01@... wrote:
                    >>
                    >>> Zitat von Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@...>:
                    >>>
                    >>>> * Cami <camis@...>:
                    >>>>
                    >>>>> Wasn't there a recent thread where it was mentioned that setting
                    >>>>> noatime is a bad thing to do on a partition which Postfix keeps its
                    >>>>> spool/queues?
                    >>>>
                    >>>> Huh? We've been using that for years now...
                    >>>
                    >>> It is only a problem in some circumstances :
                    >>>
                    >>> http://groups.google.com/group/list.postfix.users/browse_thread/thread/c9841ed9a7040555/bbf685475eadab94?q=noatime&rnum=2#bbf685475eadab94
                    >>
                    >> Unless i'm reading that thread incorrectly, its
                    >> a problem in most circumstances since by default:
                    >>
                    >> fast_flush_domains = $relay_domains
                    >>
                    >> Or am i missing something?
                    >
                    > As far as i understand you also need some amoumt of deferred mail for
                    > this beeing a problem as the mail don't really get deferred with
                    > "noatime" mounts.

                    At some point in time, service breaks cause outages
                    and you'll land up having (deferred) queues sooner or
                    later. Having noatime set causes Postfix to behave
                    incorrectly.

                    Wietse at the end of the thread states:
                    "I don't recommend turning off atimes."

                    Cami
                  • ann@elektron.no
                    Hi, ... From what I m reading, ext3 is better with large files, while reisersfs is better with lots of small files. Lots of small files - check Large files -
                    Message 9 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hi,

                      > in any case use a journaling filesystem like ext3, reiserfs, ..

                      From what I'm reading, ext3 is better with large files, while reisersfs is
                      better with lots of small files.

                      Lots of small files - check
                      Large files - keeping log files under 100 megabytes for now.

                      So, exactly what do they mean by large files?

                      Reisers has a lower ceiling for how large files it can support, according
                      to
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
                      But I won't hit that limit no matter what, on this system.

                      So, any other snags?

                      One of my associates is a fan of Reisers, but has no experience with
                      Postfix specifically, only qmail and other linux servers.
                    • Jay Maynard
                      ... I ve heard too many comments about people losing everything with Reiser4, and about how Reiser4 s fsck only deals with looking for specific byte strings
                      Message 10 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:11:07PM +0100, ann@... wrote:
                        > One of my associates is a fan of Reisers, but has no experience with
                        > Postfix specifically, only qmail and other linux servers.

                        I've heard too many comments about people losing everything with Reiser4,
                        and about how Reiser4's fsck only deals with looking for specific byte
                        strings (thus getting hopelessly confused with a filesystem containing an
                        image of another Reiser4 filesystem in a file), and about how Reiser4 will
                        never be integrated into the Linux kernel (persistent violations of kernel
                        coding standards, and a fundamental difference over its plugin architecture
                        and Linus's versio of how things should be). I'm personally staying far, far
                        away.
                        --
                        Jay Maynard, K5ZC http://www.conmicro.cx
                        http://jmaynard.livejournal.com http://www.tronguy.net
                        http://www.hercules-390.org (Yes, that's me!)
                        Buy Hercules stuff at http://www.cafepress.com/hercules-390
                      • lst_hoe01@kwsoft.de
                        ... Don t get me wrong. I neither have nor will i do set noatime on any of my postfix mailservers. I only try to explain why so many people say hey it
                        Message 11 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Zitat von Cami <camis@...>:

                          >
                          > At some point in time, service breaks cause outages
                          > and you'll land up having (deferred) queues sooner or
                          > later. Having noatime set causes Postfix to behave
                          > incorrectly.
                          >
                          > Wietse at the end of the thread states:
                          > "I don't recommend turning off atimes."
                          >

                          Don't get me wrong. I neither have nor will i do set "noatime" on any
                          of my postfix mailservers. I only try to explain why so many people say
                          "hey it worked for years on my machine".

                          Regards

                          Andreas
                        • Cami
                          ... Reiser4 is not part of the default kernel, so lets not go bashing it yet. Until its part of the default kernel, don t expect it to magically be bug-free .
                          Message 12 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Jay Maynard wrote:
                            > On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 02:11:07PM +0100, ann@... wrote:
                            >
                            >>One of my associates is a fan of Reisers, but has no experience with
                            >>Postfix specifically, only qmail and other linux servers.
                            >
                            > I've heard too many comments about people losing everything with Reiser4,
                            > and about how Reiser4's fsck only deals with looking for specific byte
                            > strings (thus getting hopelessly confused with a filesystem containing an
                            > image of another Reiser4 filesystem in a file), and about how Reiser4 will
                            > never be integrated into the Linux kernel (persistent violations of kernel
                            > coding standards, and a fundamental difference over its plugin architecture
                            > and Linus's versio of how things should be). I'm personally staying far, far
                            > away.

                            Reiser4 is not part of the default kernel, so lets
                            not go bashing it yet. Until its part of the default
                            kernel, don't expect it to magically be 'bug-free'.
                            If you're following the reiser mailing list, you'll
                            see that things are getting sorted and progress is
                            being made in adhering to the standards.

                            Reiser3 I've been using for many years, and use it to
                            store ~400 000 users mailboxes. (~1TB of mail)

                            Cami
                          • Wietse Venema
                            Postfix uses the file system to store its queue, and it can be broken in many ways by non-standard file system semantics. The following list is incomplete
                            Message 13 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Postfix uses the file system to store its queue, and it can be
                              broken in many ways by non-standard file system semantics. The
                              following list is incomplete because I have not considered all the
                              possible ways in which people can break file systems.

                              Postfix uses fsync() on the queue file to avoid loss of mail after
                              a system crash. This breaks when write caching is not turned off
                              on the disk drive, or when fsync() does not update the parent
                              directory (example: ext2fs). In the former case you lose mail and
                              probably much more, in the latter case it ends up in lost+found.

                              Postfix uses atime (last read/execute) time stamps to decide when
                              to update its "fast flush" logs, which are used by ETRN clients.
                              When this breaks, Postfix will attempt to deliver all deferred mail
                              that is listed in "fast flush" logs, whenever the flush daemon scans
                              its logs. By default, this happens every 1000s.

                              Postfix sets the execute bit to indicate that a queue file is
                              complete. On file systems that don't allow users to set the execute
                              bit on a file, Postfix will never deliver mail.

                              Postfix uses mtime (last update) time stamps to decide when to
                              deliver deferred mail. When they manage to break this, Postfix will
                              attempt to deliver all deferred mail whenever the queue manager
                              scans the queue, which is every 500s by default.

                              The fsync() issue also affects deliveries to mailbox/maildir files.
                              As far as Postfix is concerned, mtimes and atimes don't matter with
                              mailbox/maildir files but other software may need it.

                              Wietse
                            • Simon Waters
                              ... Reiser3 here. It is the most mature journalling file system, for Linux. I use it whenever the question of filesystem arises unless there is a compelling
                              Message 14 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                On Wednesday 01 Feb 2006 13:27, Cami wrote:
                                >
                                > Reiser3 I've been using for many years, and use it to
                                > store ~400 000 users mailboxes. (~1TB of mail)

                                Reiser3 here. It is the most mature journalling file system, for Linux. I use
                                it whenever the question of filesystem arises unless there is a compelling
                                reason not to, I don't know of any reasons not to for Postfix.

                                I believe Wietse is a fan of BSD, or at least confident that the file system
                                semantics provided by the filesystem there are 100% compatible with Postfix.
                                Solaris also has a good default filesystem for this sort of thing.
                              • Alexander Schäfer
                                ... If you will have the best possible availability and stability, the the ext3 should be the best choice. The best performance should be possible with
                                Message 15 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  ann@... schrieb:
                                  > Hi,
                                  >
                                  > I'm setting up a new postfix server with SATA RAID. And I wonder what
                                  > the best file system would be? RAID1 with two 250 gigabyte drives.
                                  >
                                  > I've had so many recommendations, and I'm not experienced enough to
                                  > make the call myself.
                                  >
                                  > So, any suggestions?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  If you will have the best possible availability and stability, the the
                                  ext3 should be the best choice.

                                  The best performance should be possible with raiserfs, even though there
                                  are complex dependency on file sizes, block sizes etc.

                                  On the server i would take ext3.
                                • Bryan Irvine
                                  ... vi! no wait, emacs! ;) I personally use UFS. If you are on Linux, I would probably recomend ext3. It s somewhat fast but more important, can be mounted
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    On 2/1/06, ann@... <ann@...> wrote:
                                    > Hi,
                                    >
                                    > I'm setting up a new postfix server with SATA RAID. And I wonder what
                                    > the best file system would be? RAID1 with two 250 gigabyte drives.
                                    >
                                    > I've had so many recommendations, and I'm not experienced enough to
                                    > make the call myself.
                                    >
                                    > So, any suggestions?

                                    vi! no wait, emacs! ;)

                                    I personally use UFS. If you are on Linux, I would probably recomend
                                    ext3. It's somewhat fast but more important, can be mounted as ext2
                                    in the event of a severe disaster.

                                    --Bryan
                                  • Webmaster Elaconta.com
                                    EXT3 on Linux, UFS2 on BSD.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      EXT3 on Linux, UFS2 on BSD.

                                      ann@... escreveu:
                                      > Hi,
                                      >
                                      > I'm setting up a new postfix server with SATA RAID. And I wonder what
                                      > the best file system would be? RAID1 with two 250 gigabyte drives.
                                      >
                                      > I've had so many recommendations, and I'm not experienced enough to
                                      > make the call myself.
                                      >
                                      > So, any suggestions?
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.