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

Re: Best file system

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.