Re: Best fs for imapserver?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:10:42PM +0200, Eric Persson wrote:
> I'm looking to improve the performance on one of our imap-servers
> since its getting slow on large folders with 100k or more files in
I'm not sure this is as true as it used to be, especially if you're
using ext3 with dir_index enabled. Still, XFS is highly optimized for
large files/directories, and my empirical experience is that it is the
best overall filesystem unless one has special considerations such as
full-data journaling or RAM/CPU constraints.
> However, I read that reiserfs was more efficient than ext3 handling
> lots of small files, which sounds like a good choice for this
ReiserFS is more efficient at handling small files because of
tail-packing, but you sometimes pay for that space efficiency with speed
as reiserfs3 does a lot of continuous shuffling of its hash tree. I've
also found reiserfs3 to be less reliable on my systems when compared to
XFS. YMMV.
--
"Oh, look: rocks!"
-- Doctor Who, "Destiny of the Daleks"
Reply to: