-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Rainer Duffner wrote: > > 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. In my personal experience using GFS on RHEL4 vs NFS, is that GFS outperforms NFS on a mail system, both using maildir and mbox style mailboxes. The email software we're using is CommuniGate Pro, which doesn't do any locking at filesystem level. Under heavy use, in a 5TB (split on 5 mountpoints) filesystem, we experienced a drop on WIO from ~90% to 60% using maildir, and then to ~45% when we switched to mbox. One important tip with GFS is to disable quota (noquota mount flag) if you don't need it, it saves a good amount of resources. Best regards, Rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGk6Rbu+2kmA0sEb4RAvqnAJ4k6ae/Z8mBu18VADxCKD8j1aoyFwCfYzAc IQiVYHZTil8mNLWBnbzu8bI= =uESK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
