Uh..
On 13.11.2012, at 1.02, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 13.11.2012, at 0.44, Robin wrote:
>
>> On 11/11/2012 5:26 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>>> Have you made systematic tests? I.e. compared times for all of these
>>> with those from the different dovecot backends.
>>
>> The choice of D
On 13.11.2012, at 0.44, Robin wrote:
> On 11/11/2012 5:26 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>> Have you made systematic tests? I.e. compared times for all of these
>> with those from the different dovecot backends.
>
> The choice of Dovecot backends made no substantial difference. I used
> ma
On 11/11/2012 5:26 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Have you made systematic tests? I.e. compared times for all of these
> with those from the different dovecot backends.
The choice of Dovecot backends made no substantial difference. I used maildir,
sdbox, and mdbox. I also added SiS (with
On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 17:54 -0800, Robin wrote:
> The performance is surprisingly bad ... doing almost everything.
> Searches through IMAP, bulk importation of mail folders, large
> numbers of simultaneous mail deliveries, you name it.
Have you made systematic tests? I.e. compared times for all o
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 17:30 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > On 30.10.2012, at 2.16, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > > Have you ever thought about adding a "real" DB backend? Nothing against
> > > dbox... :) ... and I have no performance comparison of dbox with
Am 09.11.2012 02:54, schrieb Robin:
> I'll stay tuned, whether we ever see a fully usable SQL backend for
>> Dovecot :)
thats not a new idea, but there is still tons of stuff which has to
coded in more prime, as dovecot works nice with other existing storage
file backends, there isnt hard pressure
Obvious caveats and qualifications apply here throughout this email.
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I see... well I haven't tested AOX or dbmail so far (especially as
> they're not in Debian and I was too lazy till now to compile them)...
>
> At least I had the impression that performance (es
On Wed, 2012-11-07 at 17:30 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 30.10.2012, at 2.16, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> > Have you ever thought about adding a "real" DB backend? Nothing against
> > dbox... :) ... and I have no performance comparison of dbox with what
> > could be done with a DBMS... bu
On 30.10.2012, at 2.16, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> Have you ever thought about adding a "real" DB backend? Nothing against
> dbox... :) ... and I have no performance comparison of dbox with what
> could be done with a DBMS... but the advantage of the later would be
> that you get all fancy
On 30.10.2012, at 13.00, Charles Marcus wrote:
> On 2012-10-29 5:42 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On 29.10.2012, at 23.15, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>>
>>> btw: What are the actual advantages of sdbox over maildir?
>> * Not moving files from new/ to cur/ directory
>> * Not renaming files w
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 07:03 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> What makes the most sense for me is to use mbox (or mdbox) for longer
> term storage that you may be offloading to slower storage systems, and
> use maildir (or sdbox) for the new mails...
Was also something I thought about... still the m
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 07:00 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> So... what are the disadvantages?
I (but I'm no expert) would guess that it's a dovecot-only format.
No support from most other tools,...
I'd guess you cannot use e.g. maildrop with it, or can you?
I personally was always a bit worried,
On 2012-10-29 4:54 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer
wrote:
In the end I probably changed my opinion.
~7GB of wasted block space for all my mails is actually quite a lot, but
in days of cheap disk space it's acceptable.
And with mbox one has IMHO the major disadvantage that mailservers
(including dov
On 2012-10-29 5:42 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 29.10.2012, at 23.15, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
btw: What are the actual advantages of sdbox over maildir?
* Not moving files from new/ to cur/ directory
* Not renaming files when changing message flags
* Not readdir()ing directories
On Tue, 2012-10-30 at 00:05 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > And I guess the interior of the files is the same? I.e. just the plain
> > mail without any changes or quoting?
> Yes, but it's in dbox format so it contains also some extra metadata (not in
> the mail headers).
Yeah of course... but the
On 29.10.2012, at 23.54, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 23:42 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>> btw: What are the actual advantages of sdbox over maildir?
>>
>> * Not moving files from new/ to cur/ directory
>> * Not renaming files when changing message flags
>> * Not readd
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 23:42 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > btw: What are the actual advantages of sdbox over maildir?
>
> * Not moving files from new/ to cur/ directory
> * Not renaming files when changing message flags
> * Not readdir()ing directories (although maildir_very_dirty_syncs=yes he
On 29.10.2012, at 23.15, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> btw: What are the actual advantages of sdbox over maildir?
* Not moving files from new/ to cur/ directory
* Not renaming files when changing message flags
* Not readdir()ing directories (although maildir_very_dirty_syncs=yes helps a
l
On Mon, 2012-10-29 at 23:06 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> There is of course mdbox also, which gives the best of both mbox and maildir
> (and some of its own new annoyances).
Thanks, Timo,... I forgot to mention that.
For me _personally_ two things speak against using it:
a) To be honest, "you m
On 29.10.2012, at 22.54, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
> I recently mentioned in several posts, that I'd tended to use mbox
> rather than maildir, because you don't loose so much space (due to
> always allocating full blocks per maildir file and thus per mail).
..
> In the end I probably changed
Hi.
I recently mentioned in several posts, that I'd tended to use mbox
rather than maildir, because you don't loose so much space (due to
always allocating full blocks per maildir file and thus per mail).
I made some tests of my archive, which consists of some 3,4 million
mails at a total of 42G
21 matches
Mail list logo
