[Dovecot] Scalability plans: Abstract out filesystem and make it someone else's problem

[Steffen Kaiser]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Eric Jon Rostetter wrote:

> For a massively scaled system, there may be sufficient performance to
> put the queues elsewhere.

Which also allows that the queue can easily have multiple machines pushing 
& poping items.

>  But on a small system, with 90% of the mail
> being spam/virus/malware, performance will usually dictate local/memory
> file systems for such queues...

Well, this discussion reads a bit like "local filesystems are prone to 
loose data on crash".
Journaling filesystems, RAID1 / 5 / 10, SANs do their job.

However, I guess that Seth and Timo look at the thing from a different 
point of view, Timo seems to focus on "one queue - multiple accessees", 
whereas Seth focuses on temporary working directory.

Bye,

- -- 
Steffen Kaiser
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iQEVAwUBSoJtbnWSIuGy1ktrAQKj9Af/ajuegRCmDRZq/E7vt3EwDxd6ob8bNaY0
bP0Vu2bs2df/GeGKbrFiOCNyq4NMADTejNie9WQMANSB8dM7qMPjdLD68rbD70+k
/UIafifb0fXBlvZTrPvKHGf1grB2qb71NAXhPi0QinbCo1CSdP4+J53XssxElrYD
YLpAOBpQFkZ2I3Ji1DDpS4Xu7n0lCG0nf4dB8frtGyBf7BGFis0EpudByAAOMsiJ
MesR5jbz3xFD5KM62YWlOyRF/3DaOCSo1DVMg6TG+ddTyulW0mCsxKRQ01Py7khm
CKp87ucG77gDR1gn341x7zbhH5TtrC1t4rRzpBBujLDcy8F0DkM4yw==
=0WvU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----