On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 11:30:09AM +, Dennis Davis wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, steff...@gmx.de wrote:
>
> > From: steff...@gmx.de
> > To: info-cyrus@lists.andrew.cmu.edu
> > Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:03:31
> > Subject: Re: Any interest to implement RFC4978 (IMAP COMPRESS)?
> > X-Spam-Score:
a) iSCSI doesn't automatically mean SATA - virtually all iSCSI
enclosures on the market will accept either SAS or SATA. SAS and SATA
were designed that way.
b) iSCSI *can* add a bunch of latency, but not necessarily. It depends
on what's doing the iSCSI processing. Higher-end 1GbE and 10GbE cards
Eric Luyten wrote:
> Our Z pool was 83% full ...
> Deleted the December snapshots, which brought that figure down to 74%
>
> Performance came right back :-)
>
Running close to full you will eventually run into fragmentation
issues. Fortunately
you can grow the size of a pool while it's hot, g
On Tue, February 16, 2010 9:49 am, Eric Luyten wrote:
<...>
> ZFS is awesome.
>
>
> We have a ZFS pool composed of nine LUNs on an iSCSI-connected (2 x 1 Gbps)
> EMC Celerra. All disks are 7200 rpm S-ATA.
>
>
> On our previous storage system (FC-AL connected StorageTek with 15k and 10k
> rpm FC dis
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 04:34:21PM +0100, Eric Luyten wrote:
> On Fri, February 19, 2010 4:13 pm, Patrick Boutilier wrote:
> > On 02/19/2010 11:03 AM, Marco van Putten wrote:
> >
> >> J. Roeleveld wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I have been reading the thread about using "xfer" to migra
On 02/19/2010 11:34 AM, Eric Luyten wrote:
On Fri, February 19, 2010 4:13 pm, Patrick Boutilier wrote:
On 02/19/2010 11:03 AM, Marco van Putten wrote:
J. Roeleveld wrote:
Hi All,
I have been reading the thread about using "xfer" to migrate to a
different server or to use imapsync instead.
On Fri, February 19, 2010 4:13 pm, Patrick Boutilier wrote:
> On 02/19/2010 11:03 AM, Marco van Putten wrote:
>
>> J. Roeleveld wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been reading the thread about using "xfer" to migrate to a
>>> different server or to use imapsync instead. Both methods appear to
On 02/19/2010 11:03 AM, Marco van Putten wrote:
J. Roeleveld wrote:
Hi All,
I have been reading the thread about using "xfer" to migrate to a different
server or to use imapsync instead.
Both methods appear to require some additional work and I would prefer to
simply copy the data across instea
J. Roeleveld wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I have been reading the thread about using "xfer" to migrate to a different
> server or to use imapsync instead.
> Both methods appear to require some additional work and I would prefer to
> simply copy the data across instead of using synchronization tools on l
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010, steff...@gmx.de wrote:
> From: steff...@gmx.de
> To: info-cyrus@lists.andrew.cmu.edu
> Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:03:31
> Subject: Re: Any interest to implement RFC4978 (IMAP COMPRESS)?
> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
>
> >From the 2.3.15 Changelog:
>
> * Added support for MUPDATE CO
>From the 2.3.15 Changelog:
* Added support for MUPDATE COMPRESS and IMAP COMPRESS commands which
help speed up bulk data commands over slow links.
It actually already _is_ implemented.
Original-Nachricht
> Datum: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 10:53:27 +
> Von: Ian Eiloart
> An: Tors
--On 19 February 2010 11:14:53 +0100 Torsten Schlabach
wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Is there any interest to implement this extension
>> in the cyrus imap server?
>
> Yes, possibly.
>
> There are parts of the world where bandwidth is still an issue.
All of the world, actually: with increasing use of mob
Hi!
> Is there any interest to implement this extension
> in the cyrus imap server?
Yes, possibly.
There are parts of the world where bandwidth is still an issue. Think
Afghanistan, for example. If you care for details, talk to my colleague
Mike Dawson (on cc:).
Regards,
Torsten
Pascal Gienger
13 matches
Mail list logo
