Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 09:53:26 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Laszlo Nagy <gandalf@shopzeus.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: dovecot, maildir, UFS 2 performance Message-ID: <20080924095209.L62985@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <48D9E8C0.6020805@shopzeus.com> References: <48D95A19.8030700@shopzeus.com> <20080923235932.U55719@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> <48D9E8C0.6020805@shopzeus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> i have everything (/) on single partition on most of my servers, including >> those having lots of mail. > I don't think that is clever. sysinstall creates different partitions for / but i do. sysinstall and most people and manuals just copy "traditions". it's nonsense. > Except when my users search for a text in the "message body". Unfortunately, > they often do this. :-( ok right :) >> assuming you configured your RAID1+0 properly it will give you MUCH more >> performance from 10 disks, than RAID1 on 2 - a bit faster - drives. >> >> IMHO you wasted money for SAS drives, simply having SATA only system could >> be enough. > This is true for raw read/write speed. But some I/O operations are seek > intensive. Seek time for a 15 000 rpm SAS disk is lower than it is for a 10 > disk SATA2 RAID. Seek intensive operations should go to SAS. But I'm not sure > what they are. If you say that dovecot is not seek intensive then you > answered my question. :-) with 5000 mails in one folder it will be seek intensive ;)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080924095209.L62985>