choosing a file system
david.lang at digitalinsight.com
Wed Dec 31 13:20:52 EST 2008
On Wed, 31 Dec 2008, Adam Tauno Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:47 +0100, LALOT Dominique wrote:
>> Thanks for everybody. That was an interesting thread. Nobody seems to
>> use a NetApp appliance, may be due to NFS architecture problems.
> Personally, I'd never use NFS for anything. Over the years I've had way
> to many NFS related problems on other things to ever want to try it
NFS has some very interesting capabilities and limitations. it's really bad for
multiple processes writing to the same file (the cyrus* files for example) and
for atomic actions (writing the message files for example)
there are ways that you can configure it that will work, but unless you already
have a big NFS server you are probably much better off using a mechanism that
makes the drives look more like local drives (SAN, iSCSI, etc) or try one of the
cluster filesystems that has different tradeoffs than NFS does
>> I believe I'll look to ext4 that seemed to be available in last
>> kernel, and also to Solaris, but we are not enough to support another
> We've used Cyrus on XFS for almost a years, no problems.
> In regards to ext3 I'd pay attention to the vintage of problem reports
> and performance issues; ext3 of several years ago is not the ext3 of
> today, many improvements have been made. "data=writeback" mode can help
> performance quite a bit, as well as enabling "dir_index" if it isn't
> already (did it ever become the default?). The periodic fsck can also
> be disabled via tune2fs. I only point this out since, if you already
> have any ext3 setup, trying the above are all painless and might buy
> you something.
it's definantly worth testing different filesystems. I last did a test about two
years ago and confirmed XFS as my choice. I have one instance of cyrus still
running on ext3 and I definantly see it as a user in the performance.
More information about the Info-cyrus