Implement Cyrus IMAPD in High Load Enviromment

Bernd Petrovitsch bernd at
Tue Sep 29 06:59:39 EDT 2009

On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:33 -0700, Vincent Fox wrote:
> Really I've looked at fsck too many times in my life and
> don't ever want to again.  Anyone who tells me "oh yes but
Especially not in the >100GB area.
> The antiquated filesystems that 99% of admins tolerate and
> work with every day should be lumped under some kind of
> Geneva provision against torture.  It's a mystery to me why
> it's not resolved years ago and why there isn't a big push
> for it from anyone.
> "It doesn't matter how fast it is, if it isn't CORRECT!" should
> be some kind of mantra for a production data center but it
It is.

> still seems majority of my colleagues talk same as in 1980s'
> about how if we turn off this or that safety feature we can
> make the filesystem faster.
How much performance do you gain and what are the risks?
So - in a larger environment - buying a few disks more and/or faster
disks and/or battery-backed controllers and more RAM usually outweighs
the risk of losing reputation and (commercial) customers.

The next question is: Why do I - as the techie/admin/.. - win by saving
a few 100€ (or 2.000€) on the hardware (and how much is the total
hardware cost?) for *my* decision to use $BRAND_NEW_FAST_FS instead of
ext3 and what can I loose (like personal reputation or some sleepless
nights and killed weekends in the future)?

Does anyone has scripts/tools to - at least - simulate 1000s of
(semi-realistic) parallel IMAP clients on a big setup?

Firmix Software GmbH         
mobil: +43 664 4416156                 fax: +43 1 7890849-55
          Embedded Linux Development and Services

More information about the Info-cyrus mailing list