From owner-freebsd-fs  Sat Oct  7  2: 6:40 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mail.over.ru (over.rinet.ru [195.54.192.99])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D266337B502
	for <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>; Sat,  7 Oct 2000 02:06:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 31417 invoked by uid 1001); 7 Oct 2000 09:06:26 -0000
Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:06:26 +0400
From: Alex Povolotsky <tarkhil@over.ru>
To: "Michael C . Wu" <keichii@peorth.iteration.net>
Cc: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Specialised storage system?
Message-ID: <20001007130626.A30963@mail.over.ru>
References: <20001004150052.E32009@mail.over.ru> <20001007030202.C41952@peorth.iteration.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <20001007030202.C41952@peorth.iteration.net>; from keichii@iteration.net on Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:02:02AM -0500
Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

On Sat, Oct 07, 2000 at 03:02:02AM -0500, Michael C . Wu wrote:
> But I think, as others have said, a database oriented system like
> squid/inn or a real db would probably work better.
AFAIK, all FFS-based systems suffers from relatively low metadata
performance, and most oftem mails are read ONCE before deletion. Thus, I
think that specialised mail storage will yield better performance.

Anyway, I'm waiting for criticizm, but not abstract like 'Oracle will do it
better'.

Alex.


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message