On 11/15/2011 1:02 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:26 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> This is why I recommended mbox in the first place. If your only writes
>> to these mailbox files are appends of new messages, mbox is the best
>> format by far. It's faster at appending tha
On 11/16/2011 12:15 AM, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Hello, Stan,
>
>> This is why I recommended mbox in the first place. If your only writes
>> to these mailbox files are appends of new messages, mbox is the best
>> format by far. It's faster at appending than any other format, and it's
>> faste
Hello, Stan,
> This is why I recommended mbox in the first place. If your only writes
> to these mailbox files are appends of new messages, mbox is the best
> format by far. It's faster at appending than any other format, and it's
> faster for searching than any other.
I now seriously consider
On Tue, 2011-11-15 at 12:26 -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> This is why I recommended mbox in the first place. If your only writes
> to these mailbox files are appends of new messages, mbox is the best
> format by far. It's faster at appending than any other format, and it's
> faster for searching
On 11/14/2011 3:16 PM, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Locking issues on mbox is the reason for my long-lasting love affair with
> maildir,
Same reason most others fell in love with it. Many now want to divorce
maildir, as the cost of the storage to maintain acceptable performance
is now too high.
On 14.11.2011, at 16.35, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> 1. mdbox uses 'a lot' files (m.1, m.2 ... etc), and the default size if 2Mb.
> Looks like not even every message can fit into such storage container volume
> (nowadays we used to see messages of 20Mb and even more).
The messages are never spl
Locking issues on mbox is the reason for my long-lasting love affair with
maildir, and it's lasts long years. Ok, the life's lessons are like this, learn
something and move on with it ;) even if it's "new old thing". Thank you for
pointing that!
What I was doubt about is default rotate size of
On 11/14/2011 8:35 AM, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Timo, Stan,
>
> I've just tested mdbox and find it pretty nice for me, but now I got
> some questions for you:
>
> 1. mdbox uses 'a lot' files (m.1, m.2 ... etc), and the default size if
> 2Mb. Looks like not even every message can fit into such
Timo, Stan,
I've just tested mdbox and find it pretty nice for me, but now I got
some questions for you:
1. mdbox uses 'a lot' files (m.1, m.2 ... etc), and the default size if
2Mb. Looks like not even every message can fit into such storage
container volume (nowadays we used to see messages
On 10.11.2011, at 6.37, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Are there any ways I can search or parse mboxes or mdboxes not directly and
> not with IMAP (I'm afraid it slooow in dump parsing)?
See doveadm fetch / doveadm search.
> in fact the only thing I miss even with my current scheme is permanent ID
On 11/9/2011 11:35 PM, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Hello, Stan,
>
> in fact the only thing I miss even with my current scheme is permanent
> ID assigned to the message so I can easily find it despite the IMAP
> mailbox it is now (so if someone moved the message from one
> mailbox/folder to another
On 11/9/2011 10:37 PM, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Oh, that's the point to consider.
>
> But I must confess I'm in love with Maildir for maybe 10 years
This love affair may be coming to and end.
>...for that simple fact I can do anything with each and every single message
>even on disk (=much
Hello, Stan,
in fact the only thing I miss even with my current scheme is permanent
ID assigned to the message so I can easily find it despite the IMAP
mailbox it is now (so if someone moved the message from one
mailbox/folder to another, the ID allows to retrieve it fast anyway).
You see, w
Oh, that's the point to consider.
But I must confess I'm in love with Maildir for maybe 10 years for that simple
fact I can do anything with each and every single message even on disk (=much
faster than via IMAP). If I would deal with mbox directly I'd need to parse
huge files, b.
Are the
On 11/9/2011 10:40 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 19:16 +0300, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
>> Will also try to use full text search,
>> but afraid of index size (and I need no search on body, just on headers).
>
> It wouldn't be difficult to patch Dovecot to skip indexing message
On 11/9/2011 10:16 AM, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Thanks, Robert,
>
> will take a look at.
>
> What I'm afraid for is how database storage should be planned (storage,
> CPU, RAM, scaling when will be over-filled). When dealing with files
> (I'm using maildir)
Bingo.^^^
Maildir is very
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 19:16 +0300, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> Will also try to use full text search,
> but afraid of index size (and I need no search on body, just on headers).
It wouldn't be difficult to patch Dovecot to skip indexing message
bodies. Of course then you'd need to remember to kee
Thanks, Robert,
will take a look at.
What I'm afraid for is how database storage should be planned (storage,
CPU, RAM, scaling when will be over-filled). When dealing with files
(I'm using maildir), it is much easy to understand and to fix just about
everything. Adding database involves tune
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:57 +0300, Alexander Chekalin wrote:
> The problem is that when my archive become big (several years), it
> appears to be painful to find specified message(s). When someone
> suddenly needs to find his/her old message, it is mostly guesses like 'I
> think the message was
Am 09.11.2011 14:57, schrieb Alexander Chekalin:
> Hello,
>
> I try to create some kind of mail backup system. What I need is system
> that will store mail for the whole domain, and allow me to restore
> messages from/to specified email at that domain.
>
> The scheme is pretty simple: on our main
Hello,
I try to create some kind of mail backup system. What I need is system
that will store mail for the whole domain, and allow me to restore
messages from/to specified email at that domain.
The scheme is pretty simple: on our main mail server the SMTP server
itself has a rule to send a c
21 matches
Mail list logo
