Storage method advice

Bill Davidsen davidsen at
Mon Jul 19 19:12:25 UTC 2004

Heath Kehoe wrote:
> Hash: SHA1
> On Jul 14, 2004, at 8:28, Jonathan Arnold wrote:
>>I'm setting up a small, private news server (FreeBSD) and was wondering
>>what the current thinking is on the storage and overview methods is. I
>>was thinking of going with 'timecaf' for storage and 'ovdb' for the
>>overview method, but was a little concerned with the warnings about
>>being more untested than the other methods, as mentioned in INSTALL.
>>Is this still true?
> I don't know about timecaf, but it's no longer true of ovdb, IMHO.
> I've been running ovdb on my production server for years.
>>Like I said, I'm just running a private news server, with no feeds at
>>all.  Supporting maybe a few dozen reader/posters, using a fairly
>>fast hard drive.
> For such a small server, I recommend that you use tradspool and
> tradindexed.  I'm assuming you won't have more than a few thousand
> articles, so it won't be worth the overhead incurred by ovdb.
> Even with tens of thousands of articles, the trad* methods are
> sufficient.

Allow me to belatedly agree with that, although I use CNFS storage for 
everything, because it avoids the open/close overhead and doesn't run me 
out of inodes. I do intend to try ovdb again, but out of curiousity 
rather than conviction, I want to see how long expire takes, how large 
the database gets, etc. When ovdb was new the overview was larger than 
the article storage, I presume that's fixed or no one would use it.

    -bill davidsen (davidsen at
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
  last possible moment - but no longer"  -me

More information about the inn-workers mailing list