On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 12:30 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>
> The main problem is that it's difficult to do any "real world" tests with
> IMAP, especially when users are using many different kinds of IMAP clients.
> So I'm very interested in hearing some numbers (and disk IO graphs for a
> few weeks
On 28.3.2012, at 13.13, Hangas wrote:
> Timo Sirainen iki.fi> writes:
>
>>> 4. Are there real-world benchmarks showing measurable differences between
>>> maildir, sdbox mdbox?
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. So far everyone I've tried to ask have replaced their
>> whole mail system and their sto
Timo Sirainen iki.fi> writes:
> > 4. Are there real-world benchmarks showing measurable differences between
> >maildir, sdbox mdbox?
>
> Not that I'm aware of. So far everyone I've tried to ask have replaced their
> whole mail system and their storage, so the before/after numbers can't be
> co
The only solution I found was to use IMAP protocol to read from
sdbox and write as mdbox.
Dsync was NOT a solution at all. Sorry about
that.
On Sun, 06 Mar 2011 23:58:35 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On
Sun, 2011-03-06 at 15:46 -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
>
>> No, as you know
very well: I
On Sun, 2011-03-06 at 15:46 -0500, Joan Moreau wrote:
> No, as you know very well: I sent plenty of emails about this matter at
> that time on this mailng list, but nobody found any solutions, so, I
> gave up.
> Dsync is too buggy to convert sdbox to mdbox.
I think I fixed all the crashes y
* Sdbox is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch
to
mdbox
* Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy
Are you saying sdbox uses more disk I/O than maildir? That's
unexpected.
No.
I am saying that sbbox is not sustainable when having very large
mailbox, IO becomes too h
On 5.3.2011, at 4.14, Joan Moreau wrote:
> * Sdbox
> is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch to mdbox
..
> * Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy
Are you saying sdbox uses more disk I/O than maildir? That's unexpected.
> * Converting
> from sdbox to mdbox has been a c
Hi,
Just giving my own experience:
* I am using dovecot 2.0.9
(well, now 2.0.10 since today) in production without problems
* Sdbox
is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch to mdbox
*
Mdbox is running well so far, and resources (IO or CPU) are not an issue
anymore.
On 4.3.2011, at 23.05, Douglas Mortensen wrote:
> I guess to get more specific, some of the questions I have regarding dbox vs.
> mdbox are:
>
> 1. What is the advantage to using multiple files?
mdbox in theory uses less disk I/O for "normal users".
> 2. What is the advantage to using a single
Thanks for the input Ed. The evening before you sent the message, I actually
had decided to do just what you recommended (stick with what we know). We have
since put the server into production, and things are working well. We built to
a physical box, rather than a VM. I do like xen VMs myself. W
Hi
I really appreciate feedback. We're on a time-crunch to migrate from a debian 5
box w/ dovecot 1.1 to a debian 6 box w/ dovecot 2.0.9 (built from source).
I would have thought if time is tight then stick with what you know and
migrate later? If you aren't building your new box as a virtu
What are the pros and cons of both? Especially in regards to performance,
stability, management & maintenance?
I really appreciate feedback. We're on a time-crunch to migrate from a debian 5
box w/ dovecot 1.1 to a debian 6 box w/ dovecot 2.0.9 (built from source).
Thanks,
-
Doug Mortensen
Netw
12 matches
Mail list logo
