From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <9front-bounces@9front.inri.net> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from 9front.inri.net (9front.inri.net [168.235.81.73]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 397D122648 for ; Mon, 6 May 2024 18:26:23 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gaff.inri.net ([168.235.71.243]) by 9front; Mon May 6 12:24:05 -0400 2024 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([168.235.81.125]) by gaff; Mon May 6 12:24:05 -0400 2024 Date: Mon, 06 May 2024 12:24:04 -0400 From: Stanley Lieber To: 9front@9front.org In-Reply-To: <974B46A300B9BE8F5D3A5DFEA23C2FBD@wopr.sciops.net> References: <974B46A300B9BE8F5D3A5DFEA23C2FBD@wopr.sciops.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: descriptor lifecycle generator Subject: Re: [9front] AUTHENTICATE failed can't get challenge (imap4d) Reply-To: 9front@9front.org Precedence: bulk On May 6, 2024 12:03:36 PM EDT, qwx@sciops=2Enet wrote: >On Mon May 6 17:42:29 +0200 2024, sl@stanleylieber=2Ecom wrote: >> for over ten years, i have been running 9front associated mailing lists= , websites, etc=2E, in virtual machines hosted at a series of different pla= ces=2E in that time, i have tried all kinds of different setups, including: >>=20 >> - hjfs, dump only triggered manually: 1k blocks, all on one partition, = corruption can be surgically addressed if you're a disk doctor, gets very s= low when a large partition passes half full >>=20 >> - cwfs, dump mandatory and automatic: 4k blocks, multiple partitions, v= ery easy to fill cache or worm, corruption relatively easy to address >>=20 >> - cwfs, no dump: 4k blocks, all on one partition, corruption harder to = address >>=20 >> in the context of managing the sites, corruption has never been a signi= ficant source of pain, even with lots of unclean shutdowns=2E my biggest pr= oblem (by far) with disks has been babysitting the cache/worm=2E moving lot= s of files onto the system means shoveling bits carefully into the cache un= til it's not quite full and then doing a dump to clean it out before procee= ding=2E when corruption happens, i move the corrupted file out of the way a= nd move on=2E when the worm fills up, you're fucked, full stop=2E >>=20 >> all our disk file servers are vulnerable to unclean shutdowns=2E hjfs i= s good for constrained disk space because 1k blocks and everything being on= one partition means no babysitting the cache/worm=2E cwfs is good for actu= ally being a file system because it's fast=2E but, depending on your setup,= dealing with the cache is a huge pain=2E on a system with a huge number of= files, many of which are changing all the time, and all of which need to b= e available and readily accessible, the way cwfs' cache works and is propor= tioned is a nightmare=2E >>=20 >> in retrospect it's obvious the most advantageous setup would be to reta= in the worm for system files, and create a separate, non-worm partition for= the huge number of files, many of which are changing all the time, and all= of which need to be available and readily accessible=2E >>=20 >> i will now travel back in time and give myself this advice=2E=20 >>=20 >> sl > >Thanks for taking the time to describe your experience in detail=2E >There's no ideal solution (yet!)=2E I've personally had more trouble >with corruption and gave up on the no-dump configuration because of >it=2E Filling up the cache by accident and similar are not too easy to >avoid and worm management can also be really frustrating as you said=2E > >imho your mail should be added to the fqa, even as is, since there's >little public information on how to choose a filesystem and especially >what the trade-offs or maintenance burdens are in the longer term, >where exactly performance suffers, etc=2E > >Cheers, >qwx > fqa already pretty much says this, but yeah, no reason not to include more= testimonials=2E sl