On 01/10/11 09:40, Marcin Krol wrote:
>> But ... xfs is optimized for long streaming reads and writes.
>
> The only reliable alternative for me is ext3 and its performance is
> unacceptable when handling directories with lots of small files.
Have you tried jfs?
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2
> Additionally, if the emailserver is using mdir format there are
> thousands (millions?) of tiny files and there's a fixed overhead in
> opening each file no matter what its size is - that results in slow
> speeds when handling lots of small files.
I just sent small test job from my mail server -
> But ... xfs is optimized for long streaming reads and writes.
The only reliable alternative for me is ext3 and its performance is
unacceptable when handling directories with lots of small files.
M.
--
Gaining the tru
On 01/10/11 02:49, Marcin Krol wrote:
>> Out of interest, which filesystem are you using on this volume?
>
> xfs, as always when dealing with lots of small files.
But ... xfs is optimized for long streaming reads and writes.
--
Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71
> Out of interest, which filesystem are you using on this volume?
xfs, as always when dealing with lots of small files.
M.
--
Gaining the trust of online customers is vital for the success of any company
that requires se
> Both full and differential backup run with same speed. Going through
> filesystem shouldn't affect backup speed. Rsync (which I used for
> testing) is doing pretty much same job - compares checksum of each and
> every file and transfers it if its different. Its 50 times faster than
> Bacula doing
> Are you talking about a full backup or some other level? If it is not
> a full backup
> you will get low speed because bacula only is backing up the changed files
> and it takes a long time to go through a filesystem with many thousands of
> files
> to find out what files have changed.
Both ful
John Drescher wrote:
- Thomas
>>> I've added both spool attributes and spool data. Backup speed of my mail
>>> server is still about 1 MB per second. Backup speed for other machines
>>> now reaches up to 80 MB/s.
>>>
>
> Are you talking about a full backup or some other level? If it is not
>
