Robert Schetterer wrote: > Timo Sirainen schrieb: >> On Aug 11, 2009, at 12:41 AM, Seth Mattinen wrote: >> >>>> 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.) >>>> >>> >>> Why is a database a better choice than a clustered filesystem? >> Show me a clustered filesystem that can guarantee that each file is >> stored in at least 3 different data centers and can scale linearly by >> simply adding more servers (let's say at least up to thousands). >> >> Clustered filesystems are also complex. They're much more complex than >> what Dovecot really requires. >> > > i like the idea of sql based mail services > whatever your choice is, use of cluster file systems stays ever, > but with databased setups it should much more easy to > have redudant mailstores, i have all possible stuff quota, acl etc in a > database yet, incl spamassassin, greylisting, webmail the only thing > which is left ,is the mail store, it would be great if there would be > the possibility to have that, if there are no big disadvantages > like poor performance etc with it > > there is http://www.dbmail.org/ > has sombody ever used it ? > so it can be compared
It wouldn't be an SQL database - it's not really suitable for this kind of thing at the scale Timo is proposing. ~Seth
