Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 11:28:58AM -0200, Heitor Augusto M Cardozo wrote:
>>>> - 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.
>
> nullfs (mount -t nullfs /dev/null /var/spool/mail) is even faster than
> ReiserFS, and is just slightly more likely to loose your data. :)
I have /var on reiserfs on a busy RH 7.3 machine that hasn't had
problems in however many years that has been (2001?). It wasn't
rebooted in the last 4 of those years until just recently when I had to
move it to a new location, though - but it's on raid1 and I've
hot-swapped replacement drives into it.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell at gmail.com