Hi, not that i ever tested any of those 2 new filesystem, but i have some troubles to believe that the FS'd be the bottleneck in your scenario; maybe i'm wrong, and 'd be interested to read some tests too though.
JeF On Wed, 2003-02-12 at 03:53, Thedore Knab wrote: > I am moving away from using ext3 on my servers due to its high overhead and lower > performance. I am considering either XFS or JFS. > > Does anybody know how XFS compares to JFS or if they can be compared > together. I want to use a journaled file-system on a IMAP server that holds 4000+ >users mail. > > The IMAP volume is using RAID 5 ARRAY, but we do not have a generator. > > When the power goes out for over an hour, the server goes down hard. > A journaled file-system, helps speed recovery from the power outages. > > Although this has not happened yet, I want to be prepared for it. > > Currently, the ext3 file-system seems to be slowing down mail > accessibility under heavy loads. Additionally, I am using kernel quota > on the file-system, which I hope to phase out with Courier IMAP maildrop > in the near future. > > I am aware that XFS is one of the best performing journaled file-systems > out there, but how does JFS compare to it. Has anyone seen any tests > ran side by side > > The only reason I ask is that the JFS file-system seems to have made it in the >standard > Debian Kernel (2.4.20). > > > -Ted > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- -> Jean-Francois Dive --> [EMAIL PROTECTED] There is no such thing as randomness. Only order of infinite complexity. - Marquis de LaPlace - deterministic Principles - -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
