[Dovecot] Indexes to MLC-SSD

[Felipe Scarel]

I'm using the GIT version, that 0.5 version is quite a bit outdated. I was
not all that worried about using ZFS on this experiment because we do have
the old mail storage on ext3 synchronized and ready to switch back, and I
could disable dedup and compression on-the-fly if needed (which eventually
was).

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 00:16, Stan Hoeppner <stan at hardwarefreak.com> wrote:

> On 11/3/2011 1:24 PM, Felipe Scarel wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I find this all very interesting...
>
> "Please keep in mind the current 0.5.2 stable release does not yet
> support a mountable filesystem. This functionality is currently
> available only in the 0.6.0-rc6 release candidate."
>
> https://github.com/downloads/zfsonlinux/zfs/zfs-0.6.0-rc6.tar.gz
>
> "Uploaded October 14, 2011"
>
> So in the past ~two weeks, you converted your 15K+ user production
> server to ZFS on Linux, as an experiment, and have now decided to change
> to another filesystem solution, a mere two weeks later?  Or am I
> misinterpreting the date given that 0.6.0-rc6 was released?
>
> --
> Stan
>