On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 06:25:23 -0800 Craig Carl <craig at gluster.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2010 04:57 AM, Stephan von Krawczynski wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I just read this one on the dovecot web: > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > FUSE / GlusterFS > > > > FUSE caches dentries and file attributes internally. If you're using multiple > > GlusterFS clients to access the same mailboxes, you're going to have problems. > > Worst of these problems can be avoided by using NFS cache flushes, which just > > happen to work with FUSE as well: > > > > mail_nfs_index = yes > > mail_nfs_storage = yes > > > > These probably don't work perfectly. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Can someone comment on that? Does anybody use glusterfs as a storage for > > mailboxes/mailfolders ? > > > Stephan - > Dovecot has been a challenge in the past. We don't specifically test > with it here, if you are interested in using it with Gluster I would > suggest testing with 3.1.1, and always keep the index files local, that > makes a big difference. > > Thanks, > > Craig Well, Craig, I cannot follow your advice as these are 32 bit clients and AFAIK you said 3.1.1 is not expected to be used in such an environment. Really quite a lot of interesting setups for glusterfs turn around mail servers, I judge it to be a major deficiency if the fs cannot be used for such purposes. You cannot expect voting for glusterfs if there are other options that have no problems with such a standard setup. I mean is there something more obvious than mailservers for such a fs? Honestly, I got the impression that you're heading away from the mainstream fs usage to very special environments and usage patterns. I feel very sorry about that because 2.X looked very promising. But I did not find a single setup where 3.X could be used at all. > --> > Craig Carl > Senior Systems Engineer > Gluster -- Regards, Stephan
