On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 2:35 AM, Jeroen Geilman <jer...@adaptr.nl> wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 02:22 AM, Noel Butler wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 16:47 +1000, Nick Edwards wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:53 AM, Seth Mattinen <se...@rollernet.us> > wrote: > > > > > Thanks, we have over the weekend ran two testbeds at full thrashing with in > house written scripts, the timings show after 57 hours of constant stress > tests with identical copies of various messages pop'd by both using 1000 > parallel accesses, for pop3 courier is no faster than dovecot, we are sure > if it was imap it would be a different story, but we have no use, since > sqwebmail uses pop3, we can eliminate imap completely, the decision to our > problem is simple now, after this test, we see no reason to continue to use > dovecot in its current state with its inherit risks when courier has none of > them, the move to courier is now justified. > Thanks to all who offered alternative suggestions. > > > > I too am considering courier due to dovecots pitfalls, we used it early > part of the millennium with qmail ourselves, it was good, despite it being > very robust, I never really liked sqwebmail [image: :)] but... since an > unmeasurable percentage of users use webmail, its neither here nor there as > far as I'm concerned. > > I'd be interested in seeing the results of your tests if possible, off-list > is fine if you want, it might help sway my decision, I like dovecot, but a > flaw that can be worked around but wont be worked around is a flaw none the > less, it might be nit-picking, but it is there, it's always going to reindex > its UID files in pop3 as well as imap, I pride myself in having a faultless > system, even though there is little risk with pop3, it is a risk none the > less, a risk that does not exist using other software. > > > > As already explained earlier, if there is a problem with high loads on a > docevot (pop or imap) + NFS + webmail system, don't blame dovecot. > IIRC NFS has ALWAYS had issues with high concurrency and mailbox sharing. > > It would be very instructive to see empirical proof of this issue (proof > that it lies with dovecot deliver), since I am sure dovecot's developers > would appreciate such feedback. > > This tests I conducted were NOT over NFS, as anyone using NFS would be aware of its bandwith use which serves perfectly well on a Gbit LAN anyhow. The tests were conducted on a local machine. The dovecot developer would not care that dovecots pop3 speed matches that of couriers pop3, he has stated publicly dovecot is developed primarily as imap server, read the dovecot lists archives if you are not subscribed there. Everyone knows that dovecots imap is faster, but we are not talking about imap here. Nick > J. > >
