Re: [Dovecot] 1.0(.14) vs 1.1.2 performance

2008-08-06 Thread Thomas Hummel
On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 10:30:09AM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > Well, one change is that by default copying messages is now done using > hard links, but you could have done that with v1.0 also by changing a > setting. Yes, that's what I did at the time I was running 1.0.14. -- Thomas Hummel

Re: [Dovecot] 1.0(.14) vs 1.1.2 performance

2008-08-06 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Aug 6, 2008, at 4:56 AM, Thomas Hummel wrote: On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:40:00PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: Do you use POP3? Yes. I don't have the stats right now but I'd say, on 2500 users, 60% are using IMAP, 40% POP3. But I had the feeling that it was the IMAP processes which were

Re: [Dovecot] 1.0(.14) vs 1.1.2 performance

2008-08-06 Thread Thomas Hummel
On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 06:40:00PM -0400, Timo Sirainen wrote: > Do you use POP3? Yes. I don't have the stats right now but I'd say, on 2500 users, 60% are using IMAP, 40% POP3. But I had the feeling that it was the IMAP processes which were causing the load, particulary because some IMAP users

Re: [Dovecot] 1.0(.14) vs 1.1.2 performance

2008-08-05 Thread Timo Sirainen
On Aug 5, 2008, at 9:43 AM, Thomas Hummel wrote: I just switched from dovecot-1.0.14 to dovecot-1.1.2 and noticed a significant drop in the server load average (which has become lower and above all doesn't seem to have unexplained peaks). Indexes are still locally stored and nfs attribute