> in fact, you'd probably see a huge decrease in load simply by removing the
> catchall. One of our customers had, I estimated (simply by how long it
> took
> to remove the directory) over 15 million emails in their catchall account.
> I
> disabled the catchall and their 200k message queue cleaned out in less
> than
> 10 minutes.
Luckily most of our users aren't aware they can set a catchall in
qmailadmin, and I don't feel like telling them :-)
> use a non-ancient filesystem that doesn't slow down with more than a few
> thousand files in a directory. I have 22000 emails in one imap folder on
> my
> server (and tens of thousands on other folders) and have zero slowdown
> with
> reiserfs.
The old box is ext2 everything, but it is about a 5 year old build (one of
the reasons for the upgrade -- and yes, we are using SA, and are working
on building a server farm for it). The new box is using ext3, and now I'm
wishing I had just done the kernel compile and gotten the tools and used
XFS. I'm thinking I'll have to take down the new box at some point in the
nearish future and change the maildir partition over to something else.
Sounds like you have had good luck with reiserfs? I'm not too familiar
with that one... Any preference for reiserfs over XFS? The boxes we run
are Redhat Linux boxes, which is the reason I had looked at XFS -- it is
well supported on Linux.
-Bill
*****************************
Waveform Technology
UNIX Systems Administrator
