On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 01:16:25PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:00 +0100, DINH Vi?t Ho? wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 11:38 AM, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Zimbra is apparently building full text search indexes while appending,
> > so this test doesn't m
Hi,
for me zimbra swapped a lot on 1G of RAM even while serving mailboxes
for 3 users. But on 2G it runs such that I can't feel it's slower than
previously worked there dovecot.
--
Sergey.
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Now that I have a working kvm setup, I thought I'd finally try how
> Zimbra works
On Nov 30, 2007 12:00 PM, DINH Viêt Hoà <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 11:38 AM, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Zimbra is apparently building full text search indexes while appending,
> > so this test doesn't mean much until I can test Dovecot's performance
> > with Squa
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 12:00 +0100, DINH Viêt Hoà wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 11:38 AM, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Zimbra is apparently building full text search indexes while appending,
> > so this test doesn't mean much until I can test Dovecot's performance
> > with Squat indexing.
On Nov 30, 2007 11:38 AM, Timo Sirainen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Zimbra is apparently building full text search indexes while appending,
> so this test doesn't mean much until I can test Dovecot's performance
> with Squat indexing.
Hello, in fact, I'm not that much convinced by full-text searc
hi,
nice test, but what would be also useful to compare cpu and memory
usage! with zimbra it's more important then anything else.
i'd like to see a comparison what kind of hardware (cpu and memory)
required for: 10, 100, 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 mailbox server. this's
where dovecot a big winner even f
