On 23.08.2013, at 14:17, Charles Marcus <cmar...@media-brokers.com> wrote: > On 2013-08-22 9:57 PM, Stan Hoeppner <s...@hardwarefreak.com> wrote:
>> I'd recommend mdbox as well, with a healthy rotation size. The larger >> files won't increase IMAP performance substantially but they can make >> backup significantly quicker. > > I'm considering migrating to mdbox... wondering what you consider 'healthy' > rotation size. > > I generally try to avoid changing defaults whenever possible, [...] I am running "mdbox_rotate_size = 100m" for approx. a year now on a small server (a handful of users, only). All mailboxes are around 1G each with a lot of attachments. I never had an issue so far. Don't ask me why I did chose 100m, I cannot remember ;-) Ok, if one of such mdbox files will become corrupt, I will loose a lot of mail, but on the other hand I am running two dovecot servers in parallel (replicator/dsync) and I do take hourly snapshots (ZFS) of my mail storage file system as well. Regards, Michael
