On 25.10.2010, at 23.42, Stan Hoeppner wrote: >> It's only for mdbox because they have a known upper size >> (mdbox_rotate_size). With mbox the only possibility would be to let >> admin specify how large the files should be preallocated to. And how >> would the admin know? And should different mailboxes have different >> preallocated sizes? For example "Drafts" mailbox is unlikely to ever >> grow very large. And in any case, if you care about performance mbox >> isn't really the best choice. > > Is it still the best choice performer WRT full text search?
mdbox with the preallocation enabled would probably perform better. > I use fts > squat, but it seems whenever I do a body search of an IMAP folder that > the index is cold, thus I don't often get the benefit of the index. Yeah, Squat's indexing speed is way too slow. It needs some kind of a redesign there. > Would maildir, dbox, or mdbox give better performance here with a cold > index? The performance problem is with Squat itself, not with the mailbox format. > Full text search is the main reason I've stayed with mbox. I've > never noticed any performance issues (not after you recommended I enable > very_dirty_syncs that is). The main problem I see with mbox is that it's rather fragile and I know there are some bugs in Dovecot causing it to crash in some situations with mbox. > Anyhow, it sounds like even if it could somehow be done with mbox it > would be pretty difficult to implement, and not provide much ROI as > apparently few OPs still use mbox. Right. If someone wants to do it, it should be somewhat easy to patch it in :)