On 6/29/2011 11:12 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-29 at 18:40 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > >> Since maildir is IOPS heavy and NFS/GFS/OCFS don't seem to like high >> IOPS workloads that make heavy use of locking, mbox becomes very >> attractive due to it's very low IOPS demands. If you can live with the >> folder tree limitations of mbox, along with a higher probably of mailbox >> file corruption, mbox is likely the best format for NFS/GFS/OCFS. > > You shouldn't equate NFS with GFS/OCFS. They have very little in common. > The above is more or less true for GFS/OCFS, but definitely not NFS.
I was under the impression that some NFS server implementations don't have stellar maildir performance with Dovecot clusters due to the NFS caching problem, and locking, which is why I made the distinction between something like a NetApp and a DIY NFS server. Is this not true? Or is this NFS version dependent? Or is my recollection simply faulty? -- Stan
