Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 21:49 +0200, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote: >> Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 20:26 +0200, Nicolas KOWALSKI wrote: >> >> Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >> >> > The upcoming dbox and cydir formats of course beat everything in >> >> > performance :) >> >> >> >> cydir ? Does this mean there is a cyrus-like storage coming soon ? >> > >> > Already in v1.1 tree. It's what I'm using for my index file stress >> > tests, because the format is practically just the index files and >> > "<uid>." named files. >> >> I just read http://www.dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-May/022772.html, >> and the results look really impressive. 10 times faster than >> Maildir... >> >> Time to upgrade and test ! :-) > > Just remember that if you lose the index files there's no easy way to > recover the mailbox. Well, except by copying the files to maildir..
Good to know, Thanks. > I'm not sure if I should try to make cydir anything else than a > benchmark format or a simple example for writing mail storage backends. > I'm hoping that dbox will be practically as fast in all situations. If performance of dbox is as fast as cydir, and if cydir is not easily recoverable (a cyrus reconstruct-like tool would help a lot here), well, cydir could stay as benchmark format. But... As I noticed almost no difference in performance (no real numbers here, just a usage feeling with 5-10k messages mailboxes) between dovecot 1.0 + maildir and cyrus 2.2.13/2.3.8, having dovecot use a storage format 10 times faster than Maildir is really attractive. -- Nicolas
