On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Eliezer Croitoru <eliezer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> OK so back to the issue in hands.
> The issue is that I have a mail storage for more then 65k users per
> domain and the ext4 doesn't support this size of directory list.
> The reiser FS indeed fits for the purpose but ext4 doesn't even start to
> scratch it.
> Now the real question is that:
> What FS will you use for dovecot backhand to store a domain with more
> then 65k users?
>
XFS?
Used for situations where one has "lots or large" as Dave Chinner says [0]
Meaning lots of files or large files.
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3IreQHLELU
>
> Eliezer
>
> On 07/05/2013 04:45 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
> > I was learning about the different FS exists.
> > I was working on systems that ReiserFS was the star but since there is
> > no longer support from the creator there are other consolidations to be
> > done.
> > I want to ask about couple FS options.
> > EXT4 which is amazing for one node but for more it's another story.
> > I have heard about GFS2 and GlusterFS and read the docs and official
> > materials from RH on them.
> > In the RH docs it states the EXT4 limit files per directory is 65k and I
> > had a directory which was pretty loaded with files and I am unsure
> > exactly what was the size but I am almost sure it was larger the 65k
> > files per directory.
> >
> > I was considering using GlusterFS for a very large storage system with
> > NFS front.
> > I am still unsure EXT4 should or shouldn't be able to handle more then
> > 16TB since the linux kernel ext4 docs at:
> > https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt in
> section 2.1
> > it states: * ability to use filesystems > 16TB (e2fsprogs support not
> > available yet).
> > so can I use it or not?? if there are no tools to handle this size then
> > I cannot trust it.
> >
> > I want to create a storage with more then 16TB based on GlusterFS since
> > it allows me to use 2-3 rings FS which will allow me to put the storage
> > in a form of:
> > 1 client -> HA NFS servers -> GlusterFS cluster.
> >
> > it seems to more that GlusterFS is a better choice then Swift since RH
> > do provide support for it.
> >
> > Every response will be appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eliezer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > CentOS mailing list
> > CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
--
---~~.~~---
Mike
// SilverTip257 //
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
