Anders, On Thursday 12 August 2004 15:19, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Thursday 12 August 2004 03:13, Randall R Schulz wrote:
I did a little experiment to gauge the internal fragmentation overhead of "mbox" vs. "maildir" storage in KMail when using an XFS file system.
I was talking about reiserfs. No solution is right for everyone, and several factors usually needs to be considered. xfs is known to be good for few large files, while reiserfs excels at systems with many small files, so a benchmark of "mbox vs maildir" will have to consider more than just "mbox vs. maildir" [1].
The material I read suggested that XFS is meant to accommodate very large files, very large disks, very many disks as well as very many (not-so-big) files. I did mention from the very beginning that I was using XFS. Unfortunately, I used only the brief descriptions in the installation section of the SuSE Administration Guide in choosing which file system to use. That was undoubtedly ill-advised.
I have no religious issues on this topic, I just took issue with your comment about its being "insanely bloated", which clearly gives a whole new meaning to the word "insane". Space tradeoffs for speed aren't exactly unheard of, so "insane == large" isn't an obvious conclusion.
It must be the climate of hyperbole here in the States...
Anders
Randall Schulz