[Dovecot] Indexes to MLC-SSD

[Felipe Scarel]

Reasons to choose ZFS were snapshots, and mainly dedup and compression
capabilities. I know, it's ironic since I'm not able to use them now due to
severe performance issues with them (mostly dedup) turned on.

I do like the emphasis on data integrity and fast on-the-fly
configurability of ZFS to an extent, but I wouldn't recommend it highly for
new users, especially for production. It works (in fact it's working right
now), but has its fair share of troubles.

We've started implementations to move our mail system to a more modular
enviroment and we'll probably move away from ZFS. Was a nice experiment
nonetheless, I learned quite a bit from it.

On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 12:27, Ed W <lists at wildgooses.com> wrote:

> On 03/11/2011 11:32, Felipe Scarel wrote:
> > I'm using native ZFS (http://zfsonlinux.org) on production here (15k+
> > users, over 2TB of mail data) with little issues. Dedup and compression
> > disabled, mind that.
> >
>
> OT: but what were the rough criteria that led you to using ZFS over say
> LVM with EXT4/XFS/btrfs?  I can think of plenty for/against reasons for
> each, just wondering what criteria affected *your* situation?  I'm
> guessing some kind of manageability reason is at the core, but perhaps
> you can expand on how it's all worked out for you?
>
> I have a fairly static server setup here so I have been "satisfied" with
> LVM, software raid and mainly ext4.  The main thing I miss is simple to
> use snapshots
>
> Cheers
>
> Ed W
>