On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:15 -0800, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> rip=67.223.67.45, pid=12881: Timeout while waiting for lock for
> transaction log file /home6/pellerin/.imapidx/.INBOX/dovecot.index.log
That's fcntl lock I guess. You could always try lock_method=dotlock..
signature.asc
Description:
I think mail is the wrong application for nfs, because nfs is slow for
metadata operations.
Would rather use it for vm hosting than mail.
We used to have a small clustered netapp with 10k hdds and three
frontend servers with postfix and courier imap/pop3.
the setup was stable however the performan
On 02/10/2010 06:15 PM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
Hi David,
-Original Message-
From: David Halik
It looks like we're still working towards a layer 7 solution anyway.
Right now we have one of our student programmers hacking Perdition
with
a new plugin for dynamic username
Hi David,
> -Original Message-
> From: David Halik
>
> It looks like we're still working towards a layer 7 solution anyway.
> Right now we have one of our student programmers hacking Perdition
with
> a new plugin for dynamic username caching, storage, and automatic fail
> over. If we get
On 02/08/2010 01:46 PM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
Hi David,
-Original Message-
From: David Halik
I've been running both patches and so far they're stable with no new
crashes, but I haven't really seen any "better" behavior, so I don't
know if it's accomplishing anything. =)
Still se
Hi David,
> -Original Message-
> From: David Halik
>
> I've been running both patches and so far they're stable with no new
> crashes, but I haven't really seen any "better" behavior, so I don't
> know if it's accomplishing anything. =)
>
> Still seeing entire uidlist list dupes after th
On 02/06/2010 02:32 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 14:28 -0500, David Halik wrote:
On 2/6/2010 2:06 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
ab9e0, st=0x7fffc949d4b0) at maildir-uidlist.c:382
Oh, interesting. An infinite loop. Looks like this could have happened
ever since v1.1. Wond
On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 14:28 -0500, David Halik wrote:
> On 2/6/2010 2:06 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >
> > ab9e0, st=0x7fffc949d4b0) at maildir-uidlist.c:382
> >
> > Oh, interesting. An infinite loop. Looks like this could have happened
> > ever since v1.1. Wonder why it hasn't shown up before.
On 2/6/2010 2:06 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
ab9e0, st=0x7fffc949d4b0) at maildir-uidlist.c:382
Oh, interesting. An infinite loop. Looks like this could have happened
ever since v1.1. Wonder why it hasn't shown up before. Anyway, fixed:
http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-1.2/rev/a9710cb350c0
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 20:28 -0500, David Halik wrote:
> #5 0x00440bb5 in maildir_uidlist_update_hdr
> (uidlist=0x2b656f5ab9e0, st=0x7fffc949d360) at maildir-uidlist.c:382
> mhdr = (struct maildir_index_header *) 0x139cdc40
> #6 0x0043 in maildir_uidlist_refresh (uidlist
No guts no glory! So far, so good. The first patch started spewing messages
within seconds. I've been running for about twenty minutes with this version
and I haven't seen much of anything yet.
I'll report back tomorrow after it has a day to burn in.
It's still a bit buggy. I haven't see
On 01/25/2010 03:26 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 15:12 -0500, David Halik wrote:
I patched and immediately starting seeing *many* of these:
Jan 25 15:05:33 gehenna18.rutgers.edu dovecot: IMAP(user):
lseek(/rci/nqu/rci/u1/sendick/dovecot/.Trash/dovecot-uidlist) failed:
Bad
Timo,
On 1/25/10 12:31 PM, "Timo Sirainen" wrote:
>
> I don't think it's immediate.. But it's probably something like:
>
> - notice it's not working -> reconnect
> - requests are queued
> - reconnect fails, hopefully soon, but MySQL connect at least fails in max.
> 10 seconds
> - reconnect
On 25.1.2010, at 21.53, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> Or just 'passdb pam { ... }' for the second one in our case, since we're
> using system auth with pam_ldap/nss_ldap. Is the SQL connection/query
> timeout configurable? It would be nice to make a very cursory attempt at
> proxying, and immediately
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 15:12 -0500, David Halik wrote:
> I patched and immediately starting seeing *many* of these:
>
> Jan 25 15:05:33 gehenna18.rutgers.edu dovecot: IMAP(user):
> lseek(/rci/nqu/rci/u1/sendick/dovecot/.Trash/dovecot-uidlist) failed:
> Bad file descriptor
Hmm. I put it through a
On 01/25/2010 02:18 PM, David Halik wrote:
On 01/25/2010 01:31 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:57 -0500, David Halik wrote:
Jan 25 11:39:24 gehenna21 dovecot: IMAP(user):
fdatasync(/rci/nqu/rci/u8/user/dovecot/.INBOX/dovecot-uidlist) failed:
Stale NFS file handle
Well, two po
Timo,
> -Original Message-
> From: Timo Sirainen [mailto:t...@iki.fi]
>
> On 25.1.2010, at 21.30, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> > If it could be set up to just fall back to
> > using a local connection in the event of a SQL server outage, that
might
> > help things a bit. Anyone know how that
On 25.1.2010, at 21.30, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> Unfortunately we're currently using LDAP auth via PAM... so even if I
> could get the SQL and monitoring issues resolved, I think I'd have a
> hard time convincing my peers that adding a SQL server as a single point
> of failure was a good idea. If
David,
> Though we aren't using NFS we do have a BigIP directing IMAP and POP3
> traffic to multiple dovecot stores. We use mysql authentication and
the
> "proxy_maybe" option to keep users on the correct box. My tests using
an
> external proxy box didn't significantly reduce the load on the store
On 01/25/2010 01:31 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:57 -0500, David Halik wrote:
Jan 25 11:39:24 gehenna21 dovecot: IMAP(user):
fdatasync(/rci/nqu/rci/u8/user/dovecot/.INBOX/dovecot-uidlist) failed:
Stale NFS file handle
Well, two possibilities:
a) The attached patc
On 01/22/2010 10:15 AM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
> We've thought about enabling IP-based session affinity on the load
> balancer, but this would concentrate the load of our webmail clients, as
> well as not really solving the problem for users that leave clients open
> on multiple systems.
Webmail
On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 12:57 -0500, David Halik wrote:
> Jan 25 11:39:24 gehenna21 dovecot: IMAP(user):
> fdatasync(/rci/nqu/rci/u8/user/dovecot/.INBOX/dovecot-uidlist) failed:
> Stale NFS file handle
Well, two possibilities:
a) The attached patch fixes this
b) Dotlocking isn't working for you.
David,
> -Original Message-
> From: David Halik [mailto:dha...@jla.rutgers.edu]
>
> *sigh*, it looks like there still might be the occasional user visible
> issue. I was hoping that once the assert stopped happening, and the
> process stayed alive, that the users wouldn't see their inbox
On 01/25/2010 01:02 PM, David Halik wrote:
On 01/25/2010 01:00 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-01-25 12:57 PM, David Halik wrote:
I just had user experience this with TB 2, and after looking at the
logs
I found the good ole' stale nfs message:
Maybe TB3 would be better behaved? It has many,
On 01/25/2010 01:00 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2010-01-25 12:57 PM, David Halik wrote:
I just had user experience this with TB 2, and after looking at the logs
I found the good ole' stale nfs message:
Maybe TB3 would be better behaved? It has many, many MAP improvements
over TB2...
On 2010-01-25 12:57 PM, David Halik wrote:
> I just had user experience this with TB 2, and after looking at the logs
> I found the good ole' stale nfs message:
Maybe TB3 would be better behaved? It has many, many MAP improvements
over TB2... worth a try at least...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 01/22/2010 05:14 PM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
Yeah, as long as the users don't see it, I'm happy to live with the messages
in the log file.
-Brad
*sigh*, it looks like there still might be the occasional user visible
issue. I was hoping that once the assert stopped happening, and the
David,
On 1/22/10 12:34 PM, "David Halik" wrote:
>
> We currently have IP session 'sticky' on our L4's and it didn't help all
> that much. yes, it reduces thrashing on the backend, but ultimately it
> won't help the corruption. Like you said, multiple logins will still go
> to different servers
>
> You guys must serve a pretty heavy load. What's your peak connection count
> across all those machines? How's the load? We recently went through a
> hardware replacement cycle, and were targeting < 25% utilization at peak
> load so we can lose one of our sites (half of our machines are in each
Cor,
On 1/22/10 1:05 PM, "Cor Bosman" wrote:
>
> Pretty much the same as us as well. 35 imap servers. 10 pop servers.
> clustered pair of 6080s, with about 250 15K disks. We're seeing some
> corruption as well. I myself am using imap extensively and regularly have
> problems with my inbox disap
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 17:05 -0400, Cor Bosman wrote:
> Is 1.2.10 imminent or should i just patch 1.2.9?
I'll try to get 1.2.10 out on Sunday. There are still some mails I
should read through and maybe fix some other stuff.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
> Wow, that's almost the exact same setup we use, except we have 10 IMAP/POP
> and a clustered pair of FAS920's with 10K drives which are getting replaced
> in a few weeks. We also have a pair of clustered 3050's, but they're not
> running dovecot (yet).
Pretty much the same as us as well. 35
We've thought about enabling IP-based session affinity on the load
balancer,
Brandon, I just thought of something. Have you always been running
without IP affinity across all your connections? We've always had it
turned on because we were under the impression that certain clients like
O
On 01/22/2010 01:15 PM, Brandon Davidson wrote:
We have a much similar setup - 8 POP/IMAP servers running RHEL 5.4,
Dovecot 1.2.9 (+ patches), F5 BigIP load balancer cluster
(active/standby) in a L4 profile distributing connections round-robin,
maildirs on two Netapp Filers (clustered 3070s with
On 01/22/2010 12:16 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Looking at the problems with people using NFS it's pretty clear that this
solution just isn't going to work properly.
Actually, considering the amount of people and servers we're throwing at
it, I think that it's dealing with it pretty well. I'm
David,
> -Original Message-
> From: dovecot-bounces+brandond=uoregon@dovecot.org
[mailto:dovecot-
> Our physical setup is 10 Centos 5.4 x86_64 IMAP/POP servers, all with
> the same NFS backend where the index, control, and Maildir's for the
> users reside. Accessing this are direct con
One more spam about this :)
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:54 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Then some kind of logic that:
>
> - if user already exists in user_connections table AND
> (imap_connections > 0 OR last_lookup>now() - 1 hour) use the old
> server_id
"AND new_connections_ok" also here. The i
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:54 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> - otherwise figure out a new server for it based on servers'
> connection_count and new_connections_ok.
Or in case of proxy_maybe and a external load balancer, maybe just use
the local server in this situation.
signature.asc
Description
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:31 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Better would be to have some kind of a database that externally monitors
> what servers are up and where users currently have connections, and
> based on that decide where to redirect a new connection. Although that's
> also slightly racy un
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:31 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > Is this the situation we discussed once where a dovecot instance becomes a
> > proxy if it detects that a user should be on a different server?
>
> No, that was my 1) plan :) And this is already possible with
> proxy_maybe: http://wiki.d
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 13:23 -0400, Cor Bosman wrote:
> On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:16 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >> 2) Long term solution will be for Dovecot to not use NFS server for
> >> inter-process communication, but instead connect to o
On Jan 22, 2010, at 1:19 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:16 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> 2) Long term solution will be for Dovecot to not use NFS server for
>> inter-process communication, but instead connect to other Dovecot
>> servers directly via network.
>
> Actually n
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 19:16 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> 2) Long term solution will be for Dovecot to not use NFS server for
> inter-process communication, but instead connect to other Dovecot
> servers directly via network.
Actually not "NFS server", but "filesystem". So this would be done even
On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 11:24 -0500, David Halik wrote:
> Unfortunately, he is of the opinion that there should rarely be any
> and
> there is a design flaw in how Dovecot is designed to work with
> multiple
> services with an NFS backend.
Well, he is pretty much correct. I thought I could add e
Timo (and anyone else who feels like chiming in),
I was just wondering if you'd be able to tell me if the amount of
corruption I see on a daily basis is what you consider "average" for our
current setup and traffic. Now that we are no longer experiencing any
core dumps with the latest patches
; Cc: dovecot@dovecot.org
> Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Quick question...
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:28:50PM -0600, dove...@segel.com wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Here's the scenario.
> >
> > I want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 02:28:50PM -0600, dove...@segel.com wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Here's the scenario.
>
> I want to set up a mailbox so that when mail sent to the address is piped to
> a processing application, instead of going to a mailbox.
Conceptuall
dove...@segel.com wrote:
Hi,
Here's the scenario.
I want to set up a mailbox so that when mail sent to the address is piped to
a processing application, instead of going to a mailbox.
One way I can do this is to set up a mailbox and then have an application
that checks to see if there's mail a
ustom transport.
-Original Message-
From: dovecot-bounces+jkrejci=usinternet@dovecot.org
[mailto:dovecot-bounces+jkrejci=usinternet@dovecot.org] On Behalf Of
dove...@segel.com
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:29 PM
To: dovecot@dovecot.org
Subject: [Dovecot] Quick question...
Hi,
Here&
Hi,
Here's the scenario.
I want to set up a mailbox so that when mail sent to the address is piped to
a processing application, instead of going to a mailbox.
One way I can do this is to set up a mailbox and then have an application
that checks to see if there's mail and then processes it.
(Old
just a quick question: if I want to use the autocreate plugin with
1.1.5, I have to compile it "by hand", right? How do I do that? Can I
adapt a Makefile from another plugin?
I meanwhile solved this and updated the WIKI to explain how the plugin
can be compiled with the 1.1.x source tree.
cf
Hello,
just a quick question: if I want to use the autocreate plugin with
1.1.5, I have to compile it "by hand", right? How do I do that? Can I
adapt a Makefile from another plugin?
JC
On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 09:26 -0500, Adam McDougall wrote:
> Last night I enabled imap_quota so dovecot could report usage reported
> by disk quota. I don't intend to actually use the quota plugin to place
> any limits anytime soon though. How much overhead does this add to
> normal operations tha
Last night I enabled imap_quota so dovecot could report usage reported
by disk quota. I don't intend to actually use the quota plugin to place
any limits anytime soon though. How much overhead does this add to
normal operations that allocate disk space? Ideally I'd like a situation
where the on
On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 06:23:45PM +0300, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 11:28 -0400, Adam McDougall wrote:
> I have up to 4 servers that will run dovecot behind a load balancer, which
means
> the same user might be accessing the same mailbox from multiple servers,
and it
>
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 11:28 -0400, Adam McDougall wrote:
> I have up to 4 servers that will run dovecot behind a load balancer, which
> means
> the same user might be accessing the same mailbox from multiple servers, and
> it
> seems like dovecot doesn't like multiple access to the dovecot index
I have up to 4 servers that will run dovecot behind a load balancer, which means
the same user might be accessing the same mailbox from multiple servers, and it
seems like dovecot doesn't like multiple access to the dovecot indexes for the
one user since I currently have them stored in a nfs home
57 matches
Mail list logo
