Re: mail queue's, ext3 data=journal and sync-mount
> Rumour has it that data=journal can actually improve performance in some
> situations. If a program is writing lots of small files synchronously
(quite
> common for a mail server that has one tiny control file for every
message,
> and the average message file isn't too big) then journalling the data
allows
> for synchronous writes to a small (8M to 32M) region on disk (which is
really
> fast) and it'll then be written to it's final destination with the
write-back
> caching enabled which allows writes to be ordered for good performance.
Not rumour... I confirm I have seen the benchmarks for this somewhere. It
was in a table format... it compared EXT3 with the various options,
REISERFS which various options...
too bad I can't remember the webpage, aye? But i am sure it is there
somewhere, so I'm sure if you search long enough it'll pop up in
google.com or alltheweb.com
> Without the data=journal option ReiserFS is rumoured to beat Ext3, with
> data=journal ext3 should win.
> I would be interested in seeing benchmark data. Also one thing I have
been
> thinking of doing is benchmarking Qmail vs Postfix... ;)
Can I see a mail war brewing? ;-)
Reply to: