[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       qmail-ldap
Subject:    Re: Qmail-Ldap Performance
From:       Felipe Augusto van de Wiel <felipe () paranacidade ! org ! br>
Date:       2006-10-26 15:49:54
Message-ID: 4540D922.5090503 () paranacidade ! org ! br
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 10/26/2006 11:11 AM, brian@highstream.kicks-ass.org escreveu:
> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006, Felipe Augusto van de Wiel wrote:
>> On 10/25/2006 01:40 PM, Eduardo Costa escreveu:
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> what is the best filesystem in linux for a MTA with qmail-ldap?
>>
>>     Just for the record, we have been using XFS (since kernel
>> 2.4.18 and external patches) and I don't have problems. Our
>> servers are running Debian Stable and I have ~300 mailboxes and a
>> few domain names.
> 
> No offense but why are you even running qmail-ldap with that few mail
> boxes? 

	Four years ago, qmail-ldap was selected because it was the
only decent MTA with good support to LDAP. And today, it is still
the only that has a decent implementation of the ObjectClass and
consistency on its usage (at least IMHO). :-)

	And of course, using qmail-ldap it's a lot easier to take
care of our small "amount of boxes", and believe me, and take care
of postfix-LDAP servers with even less account and I really prefer
qmail-ldap approach.


> I wouldn't expect a system of this small scale to give any
> indication of which filesystem is best under load. We've had good luck
> with reiser3 (over NFS sitting on top of RAID-10) at
> least until the volume fills up past 75%, then it gets very slow.

	Well, it was not supposed to say it is the best, just to
point out it works. :)   In the past, a couple of years ago I
work on the implementation of 150k accounts using qmail-ldap and
XFS filesystem. But it is not "up-to-date" information. :-)

	The worst comes to worst, in the last years of taking
care of heavy filesystem (not only for MTAs), reiserfs lost the
reliability with the team I work on, while ext3 and XFS are still
considered high reliable.

	FS are an admin choice, I'm aware of success cases of
ReiserFS, as I'm aware of failure using XFS, but I still think
that the local admin _must_ test them before take somebody else
conclusions. :)


> brian
> -- 
> Never be afraid to tell the world who you are.
>              -- Anonymous
>  10:05:01 up 17 days, 18:05,  2 users,  load average: 0.01, 0.04, 0.03

	Kind regards,

- --
Felipe Augusto van de Wiel <felipe@paranacidade.org.br>
Coordenadoria de Tecnologia da Informação (CTI) - SEDU/PARANACIDADE
http://www.paranacidade.org.br/           Phone: (+55 41 3350 3300)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Debian - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFFQNkiCj65ZxU4gPQRAvSvAJ0fhTFC3nhHhEUARK1ihjgdvXJE4wCfYcoc
UHMhBXnxHSvj/xKoDWXHHG0=
=ZAt0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]