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

Re: Best file system

Expand Messages
  • Ralf Hildebrandt
    ... Huh? We ve been using that for years now... -- Ralf Hildebrandt (Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de) spamtrap@charite.de Postfix - Einrichtung, Betrieb
    Message 1 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
      * 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.
    • lst_hoe01@kwsoft.de
      ... It is only a problem in some circumstances :
      Message 2 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
        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 3 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
          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 4 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
            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 5 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
              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 6 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                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 7 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                  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 8 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                    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 9 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                      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 10 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                        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 11 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                          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 12 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                            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 13 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                              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 14 of 20 , Feb 1, 2006
                                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.