R Wahyudi wrote: > > Hi Wendy, > > Thanks for your comment. > If this is the case then .. GFS or clustered storage is not the > "ideal" solutions for storage server that use Maildir ? I do think so. > - Most of the time POP/IMAP jobs is to stat directory > - And users can have large number of email in a directory What versions of RHEL/GFS are you using? GFS is supposed to have a smaller overhead, compared to NFS. However, I'm not sure this pays out in case a maildir-mailstorage is clustered. I've mentioned this before: in case of qmail as MTA, qmail itself goes to great lengths to avoid any filename- and locking-collisions in the maildir - it doesn't need any kind of lock-manager (GULM/DLM). I suppose, it turns out to be counter-productive. I don't consider "NFS" to be ideal - anectodical evidence suggests that NFS is also very sub-optimal. It may just turn out, that it's the lesser-evil. I would be really interested in seeing head-to-head hard data evidence comparing a NFS-setup (with Solaris or FreeBSD) and a GFS-setup with several runs of postal (http://www.coker.com.au/postal/), just for kicks. Unfortunately, I don't have the time (nor exactly the resources to do it myself). cheers, Rainer -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
