Re: improving concurrency/performance

From: Sergio Devojno Bruder (no email)
Date: Sun Nov 06 2005 - 10:52:53 EST

  • Next message: Simon Matter: "Re: improving concurrency/performance"

    Jure Pečar wrote:
    > On Sun, 06 Nov 2005 03:58:15 -0200
    > Sergio Devojno Bruder <> wrote:
    >
    >>In our experience FS-wise, ReiserFS is the worst performer between ext3,
    >>XFS e ReiserFS (with tailBLAH turned on or off) for a Cyrus Backend (>1M
    >>mailboxes in 3 partitions per backend, 0.5TB each partition).
    >
    > Interesting ... can you provide some numbers, even from memory?
    >
    > I always thought that reiserfs is best suited for jobs like this. Also, I'm
    > quite happy with it, but I havent done any hard-core scientific
    > measurements.

     From memory: 2 backends, same hardware (xeons), same storage, same
    number of mailboxes (aprox). One with ext3 spools, other with reiserFS
    spools. the reiserFS one was handling half the simultaneous use of the
    ext3 one.

    --
    Sergio Bruder
    ----
    Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
    Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
    List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
    

  • Next message: Simon Matter: "Re: improving concurrency/performance"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD