On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 17:54 -0800, Robin wrote: > The performance is surprisingly bad ... doing almost everything. > Searches through IMAP, bulk importation of mail folders, large > numbers of simultaneous mail deliveries, you name it. Have you made systematic tests? I.e. compared times for all of these with those from the different dovecot backends.
> There wasn't a task that the dbmail setup performed faster than > Dovecot, in either low or high load situations. Which backend did you use? > When pressed on this lack of performance, I was instructed to "add > more RAM" to the DB machine, and that for ideal performance I should > have more RAM than my mailbox sizes. *sigh* This sounds great for a > very small installation, but this clearly is not something that > scales. Yeah... that’s truly disappointing... Do you have detailed numbers? I guess you’ve "only" tried dbmail? > The dbmail folk are earnest and hard-working, and I don't mean to cast > the slightest bit of negativity on their project. I think the > assumptions about what SQL servers can do well often doesn't square > with the reality of many applications that people try to fit them > into. hmm... > remove filesystem journaling, write barriers, etc on the mail db > mountpoint. All something I wouldn’t want to do on my production systems ;) Thanks for your detailed information :) Cheers, Chris.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
