(Illustration by Gaich Muramatsu)
On Monday 11 October 2004 02:13 am, Ivan Popov wrote: > Hello Jerry, > > > Site 1 Site 2 > > ------ ------ > > MTA gateway MTA gateway > > (and coda client) (and coda client) > > > > > > MTA server MTA server > > (coda client / coda volume(s) for \ (coda client > > and | | and > > coda server) \ maildir storage / coda server) I'm back. Coda seems to be the best technology to implement this, so I am going to have it part of my Test Plan A. > > Q1: Can T1 speed adequately support two Coda servers? > > Is it adequate for at least twice your mail traffic? Should be, and if not we can expand... > > Current size of the maildir's is 21 GB, but growth is expected. > > Be aware that you cannot have a single directory bigger than several > thousand entries (directory size is limited to 256K I think). > It is probably the biggest concern for maildir-based installations. Per ftp://www.coda.cs.cmu.edu/pub/coda/Announcement.6.0.6 "- Allow volumes to contain up to 512K files (previous limit was 256K)." So it looks like I install 6.0.6 to start the testing... However, I would still like an actual value for the maximum number of files in a single directory. Another list member's suggestion was to modify the MTA to hash into multiple sub-dirs. That won't happen, as it would also require changes to POP3/IMAP servers, and I want to stick with the released code of my mail software. > Be also aware about server file number limit. 21G data should be ok, > twice as much (in small files) will be probably too much if you do > not distribute data between several servers. I assume this refers to the "volume" limit quoted above... In fact we do have 575000 files stored now, so I'll be splitting storage between multiple volumes in any case. > > Q2: What are practical size limitations of Coda volumes? > > According to Jan there shouldn't be any, though you probably do not > want to have huge volumes. I think at least some operations on a > volume are serialized, so the bigger volumes, the bigger risk for > delays when client processes wait for each other. The only clients will be the other mail gateways, so I don't see this as a big issue. (though, now that I think about it, direct access to maildir's from my Fedora desktop could be fun... :-) jerryReceived on 2004-10-15 11:51:47