Jure Pečar wrote:
*shudder* That may be so in terms of performance, but what about
reliability and longevity? Given RH's treatment of non-ext3 FSs (and
reiserfs's murky future in general), I'd be *very* hesitant to use
reiserfs for anything.
As long as your hw is ok, reiserfs works (>=2.4.18, dont know about 2.6). When you get a noncorrected bitflip in memory, it tends to propagate down to fs and make a nonnoticeable or huge disaster, depending on where it lands. That's true for all filesystems, see:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/iron-sosp05.pdf
Solaris10 ZFS is immune to that thanks to its cheksumming.
I think it is a lot to ask from a filesystem to fix memory errors that
already happened in the buffer space before writing it out and I don't
have a lot of faith in that really working.
Anyway the 'old-school' way of handling a lot of mail users was to use a
NetApp filer with whatever number of mail servers you needed for the
user load doing NFS mounts and using maildir format to minimize the
locking issues. It should still be a sure bet.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
