On Fri, Sep 30, 2005 at 09:43:13PM +0200, Vaclav Haisman wrote:
> I don't think that frag, inode and block size is the main factor that makes
> XFS work well in many small files situations. From what I have read about
> XFS I gather that it allocates inodes on demand, that it doesn't have fixed
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Doug Barton wrote:
Alin-Adrian Anton wrote:
XFS fits incredibly well with Maildir, however this I did not test
practically
I am curious as to what the defaults are for frag, inode, and block sizes on
XFS, and whether that is one of the factors that make it work well
On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 04:11:29AM +0300, Alin-Adrian Anton wrote:
> Dear Hackers,
>
> First of all thank you for your time and attention.
>
> I am in the position to implement a large-scale mail server and I
> will never go for anything else but FreeBSD (fixation?).
>
>
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alin-Adrian Anton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> I run out of inodes with Maildir, and there were just a few hundred
> accounts. Outlook ppl tend to "leave their messages on server if they
> are not 7 days old" and this brings Christmas every day.
How many files was that, a
On 29 Sep, Doug Barton wrote:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
>> A 4K block won't hold your median file. But an 8K block wastes a lot of
>> space. You might get a file with 0 blocks and 3 frags, assuming that UFS2
>> will do that, which doesn't seem good. If UFS2 won't do that, you get a
>> lot of half-emp
Alin-Adrian Anton wrote:
XFS fits incredibly well with Maildir, however this I did not test
practically
I am curious as to what the defaults are for frag, inode, and block sizes on
XFS, and whether that is one of the factors that make it work well with
maildir.
Doug
--
This .signatu
Eric Anderson wrote:
Alin-Adrian Anton wrote:
I don't know if the mbox format can handle this, and I know
Maildir cannot handle this on UFS2 standard install, no matter of
soft-updates. (because it exhaustes the free nodes) So I currently
have no solution for this stuff.
I'm not sure
Mike Meyer wrote:
This seems very reasonable. The trick is figuring out what "the median
file size" is. I grabbed my mail archive, but that's unlikely to be
representative of most users. You either need to guess right, or make
arrangements to reformat the file system using current dasa at regu
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Doug Barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> > The solution isn't to avoid Maildir/mh - the solution is to tune the
> > file system for the expected usage. FreeBSD (and Unix in general)
> > gives you lots of knobs to deal with things like this. Learn to use
>
Mike Meyer wrote:
The solution isn't to avoid Maildir/mh - the solution is to tune the
file system for the expected usage. FreeBSD (and Unix in general)
gives you lots of knobs to deal with things like this. Learn to use
them.
The default block and frag size are relatively large - 2K and 16K
ap
From personal experience on a smaller system(~1000 accounts and
nearly all ways less than 45MB boxes) I would suggest avoiding mboxes
all together. Maildir is all ways the way to go. For cleaning stuff
out automatically and ect, maildir is much nicer as well.
Also is this vnodes or inodes? See the
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Alin-Adrian Anton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed:
> I am in the position to implement a large-scale mail server and I will
> never go for anything else but FreeBSD (fixation?).
How are users going to get to the mail? Web browsers? IMAP? POP?
> I don't know if the m
Alin-Adrian Anton wrote:
Dear Hackers,
First of all thank you for your time and attention.
I am in the position to implement a large-scale mail server and I
will never go for anything else but FreeBSD (fixation?).
It should be able to handle graceously 4000 e-mail accounts where
Dear Hackers,
First of all thank you for your time and attention.
I am in the position to implement a large-scale mail server and I will
never go for anything else but FreeBSD (fixation?).
It should be able to handle graceously 4000 e-mail accounts where a
minimum of 50 Mb/mailbox
14 matches
Mail list logo
