Christopher Chan wrote: > Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> In last year, i had made some research and benchmarks based on CentOS >> 4 to know which filesystem is better for Maildir: ReiserFS, XFS or >> EXT3. >> >> My conclusion was as follows: >> >> - EXT3: reliable but very slow to read many small files. >> - ReiserFS: best performance but unreliable and bad recovery tools. >> - XFS: My choice, good performance and reliability. > > I would contest the last two. > I had two bad experiences with ReiserFS in our Mail Server, reiserfsck is too slow and lost data. IMHO ReiserFS have the best performance for Maildir but its only safe on production if you´re sure that the system I/O will never fail. >> >> On CentOS 5.0, a had the same benchmarks and now, EXT3 and XFS seems >> to had better or equivalent performance on Read and Create Random >> files. One of this tests, using bonnie++, show this: >> >> # bonnie++ -d /mnt/sdc1/testfile -s 8192 -m `hostname` -n >> 50:150000:5000:1000 > > bonnie++? Not appropriate. Try this: > http://untroubled.org/benchmarking/2004-04/ > > And add JFS to the mix. You will be surprised. > I already done tests with fsbench and the results on CentOS 4.5 were equivalent: the performance of XFS was much higher than EXT3. Then, i retest using fsbench, bonnie++ and iozone on CentOS 5.0, and the results now show the EXT3 (dir_index, noatime) with performance similar to XFS. >> >> What i want to know is: Anyone use or recommend EXT3 for Maildir? > > If you do not have full blown battery back for write caches yes. > >> >> My configuration: 3Ware 9650SE-8LPML, 8 drives SATA2 ST3500630AS >> 500GB on RAID 10. >> > > Add BBU and XFS or JFS should do. Yes, the BBU is installed and write_cache is enable. I will test JFS to compare. Thanks for your help. Heitor A. M. Cardozo