On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 14:33 -0700, Seth Mattinen wrote: > Timo Sirainen wrote: > > This is something I figured out a few months ago, mainly because this > > one guy at work (hi, Stu) kept telling me my multi-master replication > > plan sucked and we should use some existing scalable database. (I guess > > it didn't go exactly like that, but that's the result anyway.) > > > > Ick, some people (myself included) hate the idea of storing mail in a > database versus simple and almost impossible to screw up plain text > files of maildir.
Nothing forces you to switch from maildir, if you're happy with it :) But if you want to support millions of users, it's simpler to distribute the storage and disk I/O evenly across hundreds of servers using a database that was designed for it. And by databases I mean here some of those key/value-like databases, not SQL. (What's a good collective name for those dbs anyway? BASE and NoSQL are a couple names I've seen.) > Cyrus already does the whole mail-in-database thing. No, Cyrus's mail database is very similar to how Dovecot works. Both have somewhat similar index files, both store one mail/file (with dbox/maildir). But Cyrus then also has some additional databases that screw up things..
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
