On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:33 -0700, Vincent Fox wrote: [...] > Really I've looked at fsck too many times in my life and > don't ever want to again. Anyone who tells me "oh yes but Especially not in the >100GB area. [...] > The antiquated filesystems that 99% of admins tolerate and > work with every day should be lumped under some kind of > Geneva provision against torture. It's a mystery to me why > it's not resolved years ago and why there isn't a big push > for it from anyone. > > "It doesn't matter how fast it is, if it isn't CORRECT!" should > be some kind of mantra for a production data center but it It is. > still seems majority of my colleagues talk same as in 1980s' > about how if we turn off this or that safety feature we can > make the filesystem faster. How much performance do you gain and what are the risks? So - in a larger environment - buying a few disks more and/or faster disks and/or battery-backed controllers and more RAM usually outweighs the risk of losing reputation and (commercial) customers. The next question is: Why do I - as the techie/admin/.. - win by saving a few 100€ (or 2.000€) on the hardware (and how much is the total hardware cost?) for *my* decision to use $BRAND_NEW_FAST_FS instead of ext3 and what can I loose (like personal reputation or some sleepless nights and killed weekends in the future)? Does anyone has scripts/tools to - at least - simulate 1000s of (semi-realistic) parallel IMAP clients on a big setup? Bernd -- Firmix Software GmbH http://www.firmix.at/ mobil: +43 664 4416156 fax: +43 1 7890849-55 Embedded Linux Development and Services ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/ Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/twiki List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
