Personally, I've seen Solaris bottlenecking on file opens in large
directories. This was a while ago, but it was one of the major
reason we switched to Linux -- the order of magnitude improvement in
directory scale was sure handy for 80-90K users with no quota. The
kind of blocking I'm ta
Rob Mueller wrote:
>> We are in the process of moving from reiserfs to ext3 (with dir_index).
>>
>>
ZFS with mirrors across 2 separate storage devices, means never having
to say you're sorry.
I sleep very well at night.
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ:
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob Mueller wrote:
That's strange. What mount options are/were you using? We use/used:
reiserfs - rw,noatime,nodiratime,notail,data=journal
ext3 - noatime,nodiratime,data=journal
Same, but data=ordered in both cases
If you weren't using "notail" on reiserfs, that would de
>> Are you comparing an "old" reiserfs partition with a "new" ext3 one where
>> you've just copied the email over to? If so, that's not a fair
>> comparison.
>
> No, a newly created partitions in both cases. Fragmented partitions are
> slower still of course.
That's strange. What mount options
On Sat, 6 Oct 2007, Rob Mueller wrote:
> Are you comparing an "old" reiserfs partition with a "new" ext3 one where
> you've just copied the email over to? If so, that's not a fair comparison.
No, a newly created partitions in both cases. Fragmented partitions are
slower still of course.
> Give
> I think what truly scares me about reiser is those rather regular
> posts to various mailing lists I'm on saying "my reiser fs went poof
> and lost all my data, what should I do?"
I've commented on this before. I believe it's absolutely hardware related
rather than reiserfs related.
http://ww
> The iostat and sar data disagrees with it being an I/O issue.
>
> 16 gigs of RAM with about 4-6 of it being used for Cyrus
> leaves plenty for ZFS caching. Our hardware seemed more than
> adequate to anyone we described it to.
>
> Yes beyond that it's anyone guess.
If it wasn't IO limit relate
> A data point regarding reiserfs/ext3:
>
> We are in the process of moving from reiserfs to ext3 (with dir_index).
>
> ext3 seems to do substantially better than reiserfs for us, especially for
> read heavy loads (squatter runs at least twice as fast as it used do).
Are you comparing an "old" re
> I suppose that 8 SATA disks for the data and four 15k SAS disks for the
> metadata would be a good mix.
Yes. As I mentioned, our iostat data shows that meta-data is MUCH hotter
than email spool data.
---
Checking iostat, a rough estimate shows meta data get 2 x the rkB/s and 3 x
the wkB/s vs
