On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 03:34:58PM -0700, Todd A. Jacobs wrote: > 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. There has alway been talk that if you use xfs make sure you have a ups as well. I use XFS, like it for my large partitions and I have a ups > > > 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" > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org > > -- "I was raised in the West. The West of Texas. It's pretty close to California. In more ways than Washington, D.C., is close to California. " - George W. Bush 04/08/2000 Los Angeles, CA in Los Angeles as quoted by the Los Angeles Times
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature