Zitiere Matthias Andree <madt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>:

> Andreas Hödle <Hoedlekwsoft.de> writes:
>
> > 1.) ext2 (CPU 70% Idle)
> > Client Ready : 0:58 min
> > 19 Msg./sec
> > Server Ready : 3:13 min (first smtpd -> last mail delivered according
> to
> > logfiles)
>
> Did you have /var/spool/postfix set to +S (check with lsattr) or mount
> it sync?

No sync mount and i haven´t explicit tested if set to +S (will have a look at
monday) but i thought "postfix check" set it up this way?

>
> > 2.) jfs (Ver. 1.0.5)
> >
> > Many errors.
> > Dead-Lock on <mailbox>.lck file
> > Corrupt files in postfix queue
>
> jfs 1.0.5 is not exactly current. Neither is Linux 2.4.10.

I know. This is what SuSE 7.3 is shipped. As i have to recompile the kernel for
xfs support anyway i could have a look with current versions.

> > 4.) ext3
> > Client Ready : 4:16 min
> > 4,3 Msg./sec
> > Server Ready : 6:12 min (first smtpd -> last mail delivered according
> to
> > logfiles)
>
> Again, Linux 2.4.10 is not exactly current. If it was +S as per lsattr
> or mounted sync, updating to 2.4.16 may increase throughput. What
> journal mode did you use?
>
> > No tests about sync behavior or other advanced stuff.
>
> So the test does not reflect production setups?

No. As you can see by the used hardware this is only a short compare about speed
of the different fs for this special setup. In the first step no tunning at all.

--------------------------
Andreas Hödle
Kühn & Weyh Software GmbH

-
To unsubscribe, send mail to majordomopostfix.org with content
(not subject): unsubscribe postfix-users

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]