On 11/5/10 9:17 AM, Ed W wrote:
compare. Unfortunately I don't have a test system available to do all
the mailbox types. I can only test mbox on my production system. That
When you rebuild your server, switch to some kind of virtualisation
option! Never again will you not have a test architectu
compare. Unfortunately I don't have a test system available to do all
the mailbox types. I can only test mbox on my production system. That
When you rebuild your server, switch to some kind of virtualisation
option! Never again will you not have a test architecture or any issue
in spinnin
Timo Sirainen put forth on 11/4/2010 6:24 PM:
> On 4.11.2010, at 23.09, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>
>> That shows that mdbox is twice as fast as maildir for uncached searches,
>> which I'm guessing are the majority of searches. I'd really be
>> interested in seeing numbers for mbox as well.
>
> Here'
On 4.11.2010, at 23.09, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> That shows that mdbox is twice as fast as maildir for uncached searches,
> which I'm guessing are the majority of searches. I'd really be
> interested in seeing numbers for mbox as well.
Here's a way to do it in Linux:
1. Fill up the mailbox with m
Timo Sirainen put forth on 11/4/2010 10:32 AM:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 15:19 +, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> With SSDs the Maildir
>> performance should be pretty good too. Here are some SSD numbers when
>> searching from mailbox with 10k messages:
>>
>> Maildir, uncached: 6.7s
>> Maildir, cached: 2
On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 15:19 +, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> With SSDs the Maildir
> performance should be pretty good too. Here are some SSD numbers when
> searching from mailbox with 10k messages:
>
> Maildir, uncached: 6.7s
> Maildir, cached: 2.2s
> mdbox, uncached: 2.8s
> mdbox, cached: 2.0s
Sam
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 15:10 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> If Charles is currently using maildir or sdbox with Dovecot's default
> body search, how much would his body search performance increase by
> switching to mbox or mdbox, relatively speaking? Obviously searching a
> few hundred emails will
Charles Marcus put forth on 11/3/2010 3:32 PM:
> On 2010-11-03 4:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> Charles, how many messages are in the IMAP folders you are body searching?
>
> Some have as many as 25,000... and yes, I'm currently using maildir, but
> have been considering switching to mdbox, but it
On 2010-11-03 4:10 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Charles, how many messages are in the IMAP folders you are body searching?
Some have as many as 25,000... and yes, I'm currently using maildir, but
have been considering switching to mdbox, but its still a bit too new
for me to be really comfortable do
Timo Sirainen put forth on 11/3/2010 11:39 AM:
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:48 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
>
>> If I want to provide decent body search capability, what is the
>> best/most reliable/easiest to implement method to use?
>
> Squat's index updating is way too slow. Solr is the only oth
On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 09:48 -0400, Charles Marcus wrote:
> If I want to provide decent body search capability, what is the
> best/most reliable/easiest to implement method to use?
Squat's index updating is way too slow. Solr is the only other
possibility right now. Not necessarily the easiest..
11 matches
Mail list logo
