--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bron Gondwana" <br...@fastmail.fm>
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2011 6:28 PM
To: "vg_ us" <vg...@hotmail.com>
Cc: "Bron Gondwana" <br...@fastmail.fm>; "Stan Hoeppner"
<s...@hardwarefreak.com>; <postfix-users@postfix.org>
Subject: Re: Premature "No Space left on device" on XFS
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 04:42:25PM -0400, vg_ us wrote:
From: "Bron Gondwana" <br...@fastmail.fm>
>I'm honestly more interested in maildir type workload too, spool doesn't
>get enough traffic usually to care about IO.
will postmark transaction test do? here -
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_2639_fs&num=1
stop arguing - I think postmark transaction was the only relevant
test XFS was loosing badly - not anymore...
search www.phoronix.com for other tests - there is one for every
kernel version.
Sorry, I don't change filesystems every week just because
the latest shiny got a better benchmark. I need a pretty
compelling reason, and what's most impressive there is
how shockingly bad XFS was before 2.6.39. I don't think
there's many stable distributions out there shipping 2.6.39
yet, which means you're bleeding all sorts of edges to get
a faster filesystem...
Ahhh - which part of "search www.phoronix.com for other tests" did you miss?
All I meant - benchmarks are out there...
... and you're storing your customers' email on that.
But - you have convinced me that it may be time to take
another round of tests - particularly since we've added
another couple of database files since my last test,
which will increase the linear IO slightly on regular use.
It may be worth comparing again. But I will still advise
ext4 to anyone who asks right now.
Bron.
