On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 06:17:19AM -0400, Wietse Venema wrote: > Stan Hoeppner: > > nicely. On the other hand, you won't see an EXTx filesystem capable of > > anywhere close to 10GB/s or greater file IO. Here XFS doesn't break a > > sweat. > > I recall that XFS was optimized for fast read/write with large > files, while email files are small, and have a comparatively high > metadata overhead (updating directories, inodes etc.). XFS is > probably not optimal here.
In the Linux space, ext4 is currently the winner here in my experience, particularly for unlink speed - which is often the biggest issue with lots of small files. We're most of the way through migrating from reiserfs to ext4 for mail spools. Reiserfs used to be the only file system able to sustain the large random IO load. Bron.
