From a performance perspective: Which Directory layout is better: 1. All mailboxes are stored in a single directory and prefixed with a dot or 2. Maildirs using physical directories, such as: Maildir/folder/subfolder/ It looks like the second option -- File Sytem Layout (LAYOUT=fs) -- could spread the load in a better way ...... I do not expect a user reaching maximum number of subfolders in linux , but what about those heavy users with a lot of sub-folders: Is there a significant performance gain by choosing a specific Directory Layout ... Any Comments? Regards, Mario Antonio
Mario Antonio Garcia wrote:> From a performance perspective: > Which Directory layout is better: > 1. All mailboxes are stored in a single directory and prefixed with a dot > or > 2. Maildirs using physical directories, such as: Maildir/folder/subfolder/ > > It looks like the second option -- File Sytem Layout (LAYOUT=fs) -- > could spread the load in a better way ...... > I do not expect a user reaching maximum number of subfolders in linux , > but what about those heavy users with a lot of sub-folders: > Is there a significant performance gain by choosing a specific > Directory Layout ... > > Any Comments? >I use a filesystem that handles this better than ext3 such as XFS or Reiser. ~Seth
Seth, XFS ussually performs better handling large files, and Reiser handling small files .... I also think that File system like XFS could handle Large Directoreis in a better way: http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_usenix/index.html Nevertheless, this thread http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-January/018994.html mentioned about poor performance for XFS ...... It would be interesting to hear about production environments using XFS ..... Mario Antonio