On Monday 13 April 2009, jedd wrote: > On Monday 13 April 2009, jjl...@yahoo.fr wrote: > > http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/PIM/Akonadi > > ... > > > It even explains that akonadi DB use 100M > > by default, then grow ... > > I noticed that somewhere, too .. 100MB *per user*, mind. Entirely > unsure how this will scale up for organisations who like to keep > databases away from edge machines. I got the impression this > was 100MB per database, but I'm not sure how much saving we > get with multiple users on one DB instance.
I think it is 100MB (configurable) per database daemon. Transaction logs of the InnoDB backend of mysql or something like that. > Weird (and unsettling) that the web page you mention talks about > 'problems with users running mbox and maildir' .. as I went down > the path of flipping back to mbox for a number of my mailing list > folders, just because the syncing of umpteen thousands of messages > was killing the machine during my backup cycle. If this system can't > cope (and given it just caches stuff on the way in, I don't see what > it has to actually cope with here) with the two most common types > of mail storage structures .. it doesn't bode well. Where did you read that? Handling huge amounts of mail is basically one of the designed for use cases. Cheers, Kevin
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
