recommended overview format ...

The Hermit Hacker scrappy at hub.org
Tue Sep 12 05:06:24 UTC 2000


On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, Katsuhiro Kondou wrote:

> 
> In article <Pine.BSF.4.21.0009112300140.1305-100000 at thelab.hub.org>,
> 	The Hermit Hacker <scrappy at hub.org> wrote;
> 
> } what is currently the "recommended" overview format?  buffindexed or
> } ovdb?  drawback/advantages to each?
> 
> For buffindexed, drawback, I think, is recovery may take
> while.  Here is a real data when I did late last night
> because of CPU failure. 3571026 entries are rebuilt in
> 2.5hr, about 400ent/sec, whilst innd is stopped.

okay, with ovdb, innd has to be running in order to rebuild ... what about
buffindexed?  can the server be running while doing the rebuild, or does
innd have to be down?

I'm liking the features that ovdb is providing, the ability to check stats
and whatnot, so will most likely be moving my large server to it when I
get a new drive ... one major disadvantage of ovdb vs buffindexed is
(unless I'm missing something), ovdb can't span file systems ... for
5million articles, it says you need 5.5gig, and unless I'm missing
something, that means 5.5gig on one file system ... my news server right
now is 10million articles, so barin gany other growth, to go to ovdb, I
will need to dedicate ~10gig of contiguous file system just for overviews,
instead of spreading it over multiple spindles :(






More information about the inn-workers mailing list