GFI Software

Welcome to the GFI Software community forum! For support please open a ticket from https://support.gfi.com.

Home » GFI User Forums » Kerio Connect » Best LINUX filesystem for store volume
Best LINUX filesystem for store volume [message #127730] Fri, 05 February 2016 18:12 Go to next message
j.a.duke is currently offline  j.a.duke
Messages: 239
Registered: October 2006
I've been running Connect on Macs for a long time now and am find that with email volumes growing I need faster disk I/O among other things.

I'm moving one of my server to CentOS 7 and was wondering which of the supported filesystem I should use. I've read about ext3, ext4 and XFS and while they all sound appropriate, I was wondering if this info has any real bearing on running Connect:

Quote:
Because of delayed allocation and other performance optimizations, ext4's behavior of writing files to disk is different from ext3. In ext4, when a program writes to the file system, it is not guaranteed to be on-disk unless the program issues an fsync() call afterwards.

By default, ext3 automatically forces newly created files to disk almost immediately even without fsync(). This behavior hid bugs in programs that did not use fsync() to ensure that written data was on-disk. The ext4 file system, on the other hand, often waits several seconds to write out changes to disk, allowing it to combine and reorder writes for better disk performance than ext3.


For those of you running under Linux, what filesystem are you using?

Thanks.

Cheers,
Jon

[Updated on: Fri, 05 February 2016 18:12]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Best LINUX filesystem for store volume [message #127731 is a reply to message #127730] Fri, 05 February 2016 18:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jonn is currently offline  Jonn
Messages: 23
Registered: June 2015
XFS is CentOS 7 default now. This is what I use. Ext4 would be ok but you can run out of inodes before you run out of disk space.
Re: Best LINUX filesystem for store volume [message #127883 is a reply to message #127731] Wed, 10 February 2016 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
TBF MF is currently offline  TBF MF
Messages: 2
Registered: February 2016
We run ext4 because it is "the" tried and proven Linux filesystem.
I did not do any benchmarks yet, but it is way ahead of ext3 in terms of performance. However, as was already quoted, it buys this performance with delayed writes.

XFS is a pretty fast filesystem too, but I shy away from it because I once had trouble recovering a corrupt FS. ext4 never failed me during desaster recovery, and FS performance was never a bottleneck, not even in VMs.
However, everything has to be configured correctly. VM parameters or wrong (software) RAID configs usually have a much bigger impact on performance than the filesystem, at least in my experience.
Re: Best LINUX filesystem for store volume [message #127886 is a reply to message #127883] Wed, 10 February 2016 22:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Petr Dobry (Kerio) is currently offline  Petr Dobry (Kerio)
Messages: 405
Registered: November 2003

Kerio Technologies
If you are looking for running Connect in virtual machine with thin provisioned drives, you should go with XFS. Ext4 has an issue with not reusing free space.

If you use thick provisioning or physical drives, there's no really big difference between XFS and ext4 regarding performance (except fsck - thats' painfully slow for ext filesystems, really fast for XFS).

Also XFS native snapshots you might find useful.


Petr Dobry
Product Development Manager | Kerio

[Updated on: Wed, 10 February 2016 22:41]

Report message to a moderator

Re: Best LINUX filesystem for store volume [message #127899 is a reply to message #127886] Thu, 11 February 2016 17:41 Go to previous message
j.a.duke is currently offline  j.a.duke
Messages: 239
Registered: October 2006
Petr Dobry (Kerio) wrote on Wed, 10 February 2016 16:41
If you are looking for running Connect in virtual machine with thin provisioned drives, you should go with XFS. Ext4 has an issue with not reusing free space.

If you use thick provisioning or physical drives, there's no really big difference between XFS and ext4 regarding performance (except fsck - thats' painfully slow for ext filesystems, really fast for XFS).

Also XFS native snapshots you might find useful.


Petr,

Thanks for the info.

I've gone and setup XFS volumes based on the comments so far.

I'm going to look into the snapshot functionality-seems like a good way to image my Connect store & archive volumes cleanly. Do you have any resources on how to best leverage this with Connect? The built-in backup tools run for way too long on my store (~6.5 milliion messages over ~1.8T).

Having only experience with OS X, looks like I've got some learning to do.

Cheers,
Jon
Previous Topic: Outlook 2010 + KOFF very slow(freezing) loading/searching
Next Topic: POP3 to multiple address of domain.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Apr 02 11:02:45 CEST 2023

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03449 seconds