Hi, Thanks for reply.
2008/8/4 Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Aug 4, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Sebastian Tymków wrote: > > Hi, >> >> I wonder if it's normal behaviour that indexes created in memory have long >> creation time. >> > > No, but the problem has more to do with caching. If you use a client that > fetches the same data often (such as message headers/sizes) then Dovecot > will do the same work for each request. In that case in-memory indexes > perform poorly. This is more of a problem with webmail clients and less of a > problem with Outlook/Thunderbird. And what about if I want use both solutions , memory indexing for POP3 and hd-indexing for webmail? Are there any disadventages ? > > If you're using POP3 that also performs poorly without indexes with v1.0. > v1.1 makes it better. > > Other problem is that indexes created on nfs sometimes get crushed and I >> need to delete indexes in case of >> fetching mails ( I see mails on hd but when telnet on host and make stat I >> don't see any). >> > > So Dovecot says there are no mails while there are in fact? Yes. But when I delete indexes and they are recreated everything works fine. Is it possible that something goes wrong on NFS connection ? > Does version 1.1.x correct this errors ? >> > > v1.1 makes NFS work a lot better, so it's highly recommended. Does it stable version ? Can I use it on production without any problems ? > > And what is better to use : nfs or >> memory indexing ? >> Can someone point me adventages and disadventages of using both solutions? >> > > Have you read http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS ? Yes. Best regards, Sebastian
