On 5/11/2012 1:41 AM, Cor Bosman wrote: > Hey all, we're in the process of checking out alternatives to our index > storage. We're currently storing indexes on a NetApp Metrocluster which > works fine, but is very expensive. We're planning a few different setups and > doing some actual performance tests on them.
Hi Cor, > Does anyone know some of the IO patterns of the indexes? For instance: > > - mostly random reads or linear reads/writes? > - average size of reads and writes? > - how many read/writes on average for a specific mailbox size? > > Anyone do any measurements of this kind? Mail is always a random IO workload, unless your mailbox count is 1, whether accessing indexes or mail files. Regarding the other two questions, you'll likely need to take your own measurements. > Alternatively, does anyone have any experience with other redundant storage > options? Im thinking things like MooseFS, DRBD, etc? You seem to be interested in multi-site clustering/failover solutions, not simply redundant storage. These two are clustering software solutions but DRBD is not suitable for multi-site use, and MooseFS doesn't seem to be either. MooseFS is based heavily on FUSE, so performance will be far less than optimal. MooseFS is a distributed filesystem, and as with all other distributed/cluster filesystems its metadata performance will suffer, eliminating maildir as a mail store option. Can you provide more specifics on your actual storage architecture needs? -- Stan
