[Dovecot] linux 2.4 vs 2.6 kernel

[Marc Perkel]

Dan Hollis wrote:

>On Tue, 19 Jul 2005, vmstech wrote:
>  
>
>>>People I know who've used Reiser say it's wonderfuly fast, but if it 
>>>      
>>>
>>>>corrupts, well... save your time, and go straight to restoring your 
>>>>backups.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>ReiserFS does seems just like the ducksnuts in terms of performance, but
>>it seems to have accumulated some horror stories along the way:
>>http://www.linuxsa.org.au/pipermail/linuxsa/2002-January/038035.html
>>
>>Marcs being runing it for 5 years, no issues - any one else using it?
>>    
>>
>
>I've been using it for many years. At home, no issues.
>
>We used to have lots of severe corruption issues at work on production 
>servers with ext2/ext3 (and a few with xfs). We switched to reiserfs and 
>no more issues. Not just a few servers either.
>
>So i'd say quoting horror stories from 2002 definitely no longer applies.
>Its like quoting horror stories about kernel 2.4 (same time frame). And 
>about as relevant :-)
>
>-Dan
>
>  
>
I've installed it on about 30 servers with no problems at all. I think 
there was one release of the kernel in 2002 thar had a reiser bug, but I 
never used that one.

If you were running a few big files I'd say use ext3. But when it comes 
to lots of little files like maildir you're looking at like a 10x speed 
increaes.

-- 
Marc Perkel - marc at perkel.com

Spam Filter: http://www.junkemailfilter.com
    My Blog: http://marc.perkel.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20050718/aaf945b6/attachment-0001.html>