Hi,
I have some out of memory errors in my logs (file errors.txt attached)
I'm using dovecot 2.0.19, I can see some memory leaks fix in hg after
the 2.0.19 release but they seem related to imap-login service,
I attached my config too, is something wrong there? Should I really
increase the li
Has anyone tried or benchmarked ZFS, perhaps ZFS+NFS as backing store for
yes. long time ago. ZFS isn't useful for anything more than a toy. I/O
performance is just bad.
The executive summary is something like: when raid5 fails, because at that
point you effectively do a raid "scrub" you tend to suddenly notice a bunch
of other hidden problems which were lurking and your rebuild fails (this
and no raid will protect you from every failure. You have to do backups
On 29.6.2012, at 5.18, Daniel Parthey wrote:
> wouldn't it be better to use a syntax similar to other doveadm commands,
> with labels for all arguments?
>
> doveadm auth test -u -p []
> doveadm auth cache flush -u []
> doveadm auth cache stats
>
> This will allow you to syntactically distinguis
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 28.6.2012, at 9.43, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Perhaps for v2.2:
>
> doveadm auth test []
> doveadm auth cache flush []
> doveadm auth cache stats
>
> and for v2.1 a bit kludgy way:
>
> doveadm auth []
> doveadm auth cache flush []
>
> so you couldn't test authentication
On 28.6.2012, at 9.43, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> It would be possible to add a doveadm command for this.. I think the
> main reason why I already didn't do it last time I was asked this was
> because I wanted to use "doveadm auth cache flush" or something similar
> as the command, but there already e
Angel L. Mateo wrote:
> El 27/06/12 14:24, Timo Sirainen escribió:
> >On 27.6.2012, at 14.10, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
> >>We have dovecot configured with auth cache.
> >> Is there any way to remove a specific entry (not all) from this cache?
> > Nope. What do you need it for?
> Because information fo
On 06/28/12 05:56, Ed W wrote:
So given the statistics show us that 2 disk failures are much more
common than we expect, and that "silent corruption" is likely occurring
within (larger) real world file stores, there really aren't many battle
tested options that can protect against this - really
On 2012-06-28 4:22 PM, Alex Crow wrote:
On 28/06/12 20:28, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 2:04 PM, Gary Mort wrote:
That's probably due to the different structures they use. sdbox
can safely use either because each email message has a unique
filename, and if it exists in both places it
On 28/06/2012 17:54, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 12:20 PM, Ed W wrote:
Bad things are going to happen if you loose a complete chunk of your
filesystem. I think the current state of the world is that you should
assume that realistically you will be looking to your backups if you
loose t
On 28/06/12 20:28, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-06-28 2:04 PM, Gary Mort wrote:
That's probably due to the different structures they use. sdbox
can safely use either because each email message has a unique
filename, and if it exists in both places it doesn't matter.
Eh?? Sdbox is like mbox
On 2012-06-28 2:04 PM, Gary Mort wrote:
That's probably due to the different structures they use. sdbox
can safely use either because each email message has a unique
filename, and if it exists in both places it doesn't matter.
Eh?? Sdbox is like mbox - one file per mailbox/folder... it is NO
Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
> Quite right; this comes from a reading of pages in both wiki1 and wiki2.
> I now surmise that this isn't a good idea since wiki1 describes v1.x
> and wiki2 describes v2.x, which have different syntaxes (syntaces?). Is
> all this correct?
I too had a very hard time figu
On 28.6.2012, at 21.04, Gary Mort wrote:
> mdbox though is different, multiple messages are stored in a single file.
> The index indicates in which file each message is located. When the data
> is moved to alt storage, the filename can change in which case the index is
> updated.
> IE:
> Primary/
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 28.6.2012, at 20.14, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> >> "An upshot of the way alternate storage works is that any given storage
> >> file (mailboxes//dbox-Mails/u.* (sdbox) or storage/m.* (mdbox))
> can
> >> only appear *either* in the primary s
On 28.6.2012, at 20.55, Gary Mort wrote:
>> The indexes have to be in primary storage.
>>
> True, but the data they are based on I'm assuming does not include the full
> email message, just a few key pieces:
> uniqueid, subject, from, to, etc.
>
> For an always running server, the indexes are al
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 28.6.2012, at 17.43, Gary Mort wrote:
> > First I want to add AWS S3 as a storage option for alternate storage.
> >
> > Then instead of the above model, the new model would be that email is
> > always stored in alternate storage, and may
On 28.6.2012, at 20.21, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 28.6.2012, at 20.14, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
>>> "An upshot of the way alternate storage works is that any given storage
>>> file (mailboxes//dbox-Mails/u.* (sdbox) or storage/m.* (mdbox)) can
>>> only appear *either* in the primary storage area *o
On 28.6.2012, at 20.14, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> "An upshot of the way alternate storage works is that any given storage
>> file (mailboxes//dbox-Mails/u.* (sdbox) or storage/m.* (mdbox)) can
>> only appear *either* in the primary storage area *or* the alternate storage
>> area but not both — if th
On 28.6.2012, at 17.43, Gary Mort wrote:
> http://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox
>
> To make life easy, I'll stick with just single-dbox as a start, however
> multi-dbox would be doable.
>
> With dbox, the only thing that I need to change is the alternate storage
> model:
> "An upshot of t
On 2012-06-28 12:20 PM, Ed W wrote:
Bad things are going to happen if you loose a complete chunk of your
filesystem. I think the current state of the world is that you should
assume that realistically you will be looking to your backups if you
loose the wrong 2 disks in a raid1 or raid10 array.
On 28/06/2012 14:06, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
- RAID1 pairs, plus some kind of intelligent overlay filesystem, eg
md-linear+XFS / BTRFS. With the filesystem aware of the underlying
arrangement it can theoretically optimise file placement and
dramatically increase write speeds for smal
I did some searching in the mail archives and didn't see any discussion of
integration with AWS, so I wanted to through out my thoughts/plans and see
if it has been done before.
I am setting up my own personal website on EC2 along with an email server,
and I really don't like the idea of using the
Am 2012-06-27 20:47, schrieb Daniel Parthey:
Rolf wrote:
LMTP would be new to me and I fear just other hard-to-understand
configuration topics.
LMTP (Lightweight Message Transfer Protocol) is really simple,
similar to SMTP, but immediately returns a status code which
tells whether the delivery
>- RAID1 pairs, plus some kind of intelligent overlay filesystem, eg
>md-linear+XFS / BTRFS. With the filesystem aware of the underlying
>arrangement it can theoretically optimise file placement and
>dramatically increase write speeds for small files in the same manner
>that RAID-0 theoreticall
On 28/06/2012 13:46, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
(unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
nope, I'm talking about complete pair's crash when two disks die.
I do understand that's the possibility of such outcome (when two
disks in the same pair crash) is not high, but
when we have
(unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
nope, I'm talking about complete pair's crash when two disks die.
I do understand that's the possibility of such outcome (when two disks in the
same pair crash) is not high, but
when we have 12 or 24 disks in storage...
then may 6-12
>Note that you wouldn't get anything back from a similar fail of a RAID10 array
>either
I wasn't aware of it, that's interesting.
>(unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
nope, I'm talking about complete pair's crash when two disks die.
I do understand that's the possibility o
Note that you wouldn't get anything back from a similar fail of a RAID10
array either (unless we are talking temporary removal and re-insertion?)
use multiple RAID1 arrays, 2 drives each, one filesystem each.
On 28/06/2012 13:01, Костырев Александр Алексеевич wrote:
Hello!
somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
mailstorage.
Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
I've decided to give it a try,
but ended up with not being able to recover any data off survived pai
Hello!
somewhere in maillist I've seen RAID1+md concat+XFS being promoted as
mailstorage.
Does anybody in here actually use this setup?
I've decided to give it a try,
but ended up with not being able to recover any data off survived pairs from
linear array when _the_first of raid1 pairs got do
On 28/06/12 09:03, Reinhard Vicinus wrote:
and afterwards:
/usr/bin/doveadm -o imapc_user=u...@example.org -o
imapc_password=imappw
-o imapc_host=local-mailbox -o imapc_features=rfc822.size -o
imapc_port=18143 -D -v backup -R -f -u u...@example.org imapc:
dsync(u...@example.org): Error: Mailb
29413 root 1 760 22820K 9204K kqread 1 0:17 5.86%
indexer-worker
It runs as root while not really doing anything, but when it starts
accessing users' files it temporarily drops privileges. This is
necessary if users have multiple different UIDs.
to showed it with root pr
On 28.6.2012, at 12.19, Edgar Fuß wrote:
>> The "mail" field defaults to mail_location setting.
> Ah, yes, thanks. So simple I didn't think of it.
> Will it default when the LDAP attribute is not present or will I have to
> check the attribute's presence in the LDAP filter?
The default settings
> The "mail" field defaults to mail_location setting.
Ah, yes, thanks. So simple I didn't think of it.
Will it default when the LDAP attribute is not present or will I have to check
the attribute's presence in the LDAP filter?
Timo & List,
Just by way of a follow-up, running tests on a 1.0 installation of Dovecot
confirms it.
Sure enough, I was still configuring my mail stores based on my outdated
understanding and hadn't fully appreciated changes to what dovecot-shared files
affect in recent versions.
Thanks all,
Hello Timo,
Thanks for your reply. I have the dovewiki a little bit misunderstod.
"Public mailboxes are typically mailboxes that are visible to all users or to
large user groups. They are created by defining a public namespace, under which
all the shared mailboxes are"
Daniel
-Ursprünglic
El 27/06/12 14:24, Timo Sirainen escribió:
On 27.6.2012, at 14.10, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
We have dovecot configured with auth cache. Is there any way to remove
a specific entry (not all) from this cache?
Nope. What do you need it for?
Because information for users sometimes changes
On 28/06/12 08:53, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 15:10 +0200, Reinhard Vicinus wrote:
Hi,
if i delete the home directory and all content below an existing account
u...@example.org. Then run:
/usr/bin/doveadm quota recalc -u u...@example.org
Are you sure quota recalc makes a diffe
39 matches
Mail list logo
