Hello, I will change my production system to ext3 for solving the performance problem. Actually, I have tried GFS2 in testing server and found performance can be improved to a acceptable level (response within 2 seconds) However, it still not stable for production system.... and I can't wait until RHEL 5.3 release... 2008/11/13 Kadlecsik Jozsef <kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Hello, > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2008, Achievement Chan wrote: > >> For handling a mailbox with 10000 email, it takes 6-8 seconds for >> waiting response from first "SELECT" command. >> The response time is also unstable too, sometimes it takes 10-20 >> seconds for the same mailbox. >> >> Based some online material, i've tried to tune the gfs. But there are >> seems no improvement. >> e.g. >> gfs_tool setflag inherit_jdata /home/domains >> gfs_tool settune /home/domains recoverd_secs 60 >> gfs_tool settune /home/domains glock_purge 50 >> gfs_tool settune /home/domains demote_secs 100 >> gfs_tool settune /home/domains scand_secs 3 >> gfs_tool settune /home/domains max_readahead 262144 >> gfs_tool settune /home/domains statfs_fast 1 >> >> Has anyone tried to provide imap service in GFS? > > We have had exactly the same problems with maildir over GFS. There was no > tuning whatsoever which helped: the fighting for the locks for every > file in the maildir costs so much that you cannot expect better > performance. > > The best is to avoid maildir and use simple mailbox format instead. We > went (back) to mailbox and since then our users have not complained about > performance. > > Best regards, > Jozsef > -- > E-mail : kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxx, kadlec@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > PGP key: http://www.kfki.hu/~kadlec/pgp_public_key.txt > Address: KFKI Research Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics > H-1525 Budapest 114, POB. 49, Hungary > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
