[Dovecot] GSSAPI makes webmail access really slow
Hello,
I use dovecot 1.2.15 as an IMAP backend for Horde webmail.
When I enable PLAIN and GSSAPI as authentication mecanisms, it makes
Horde very slow.
If I enable only PLAIN it is a lot more fast.
Do you have a clue to solve this issue ? Here is my dovecot.conf :
protocols = imap imaps pop3s managesieve
mail_location = maildir:/ext/spool/imap/%1Mu/%u
first_valid_uid=97
last_valid_uid=97
ssl_cert_file = /usr/local/cert/mailper/cert.pem
ssl_key_file = /usr/local/cert/mailper/mail.key
ssl_ca_file = /usr/local/cert/mailper/chain.pem
auth_debug = yes
disable_plaintext_auth = no
## tuning ##
login_process_size = 64
login_max_processes_count = 196
login_max_connections = 384
auth_worker_max_count = 30
## fin tuning ##
protocol imap {
mail_plugins = quota imap_quota
## tuning ##
login_processes_count = 4
## fin tunning ##
}
protocol pop3 {
mail_plugins = quota
## tuning ##
login_processes_count = 3
## fin tunning ##
}
auth_cache_size = 4096
auth_cache_ttl = 1800
protocol lda {
mail_plugins = quota sieve
postmaster_address = r...@example.fr
}
protocol managesieve {
listen = *:2000
}
mail_uid = vmail
mail_gid = vmail
auth_krb5_keytab = /etc/dovecot/keytab/pop-imap.mail.keytab
auth default {
socket listen {
master {
path = /var/run/dovecot/auth-master
mode = 0600
user = vmail
}
}
mechanisms = plain
passdb pam {
args = max_requests=50 cache_key=%u%r dovecot
}
userdb static {
args = uid=vmail gid=vmail allow_all_users=yes
}
user = root
}
dict {
}
plugin {
quota = maildir:User quota
quota_rule = *:storage=1G
# The location of the user's active script:
sieve_dir = /ext/spool/sieve/%1Mu/%u
sieve = /ext/spool/sieve/%1Mu/%u/dovecot.sieve
}
Re: [Dovecot] Dovecot and SATA Backend
2009/11/16 Eric Jon Rostetter : > Quoting Nicolas GRENECHE : > >> I plan to run a dovecot IMAPS and POPS service on our network. We >> handle about 3 000 mailboxes. I thought first buying a topnotch server >> (8 cores and 16 Go RAM) with equalogic iSCSI SAN SAS 15K for storage >> backend. > > Sounds like overkill to me, but if you have the money go for it. :) > I prefer disk space to useless storage velocity ;-) > I run mine on an 8 core (dual quad core) system with 4G RAM, using > SATA (would have preferred SAS, but cost was an issue for us). > >> created on a separete local filesystem. My question is : for 3000 >> users, is it possible to have only a SATA backend attached to my >> topnotch server (to handle bigger mail quotas) by storing index on >> local hard drives (SAS drives) ? > > Sure. If you only have one dovecot server without any failover this > is fine. If you have multiple (active or passive) servers then more care > is required, and you need to decide on the level of risk you want to take. > >> Extra question, what is the better : iSCSI SATA backend or NFS share ? > > iSCSI would be better than NFS IMHO. > >> NFS share is more convenient to have a failover server. > > If you introduce NFS and/or a failover server, your local index question > gets much more complex... > I know it, index may be handled on NFS server on fast local hardrives. The whole stuff should be exported to dovecot server. > Is that a design requirement, desire, or future option? > It should be a future option, but index management will be more tricky as you stated. >> Thanks for your help. >> >> Regards, >> >> -- >> Nicolas Grenèche - Orléans University - France >> http://blog.garnett.fr (in french) > > > -- > Eric Rostetter > The Department of Physics > The University of Texas at Austin > > This message is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind, > either expressed or implied. Use this message at your own risk. >
[Dovecot] Dovecot and SATA Backend
Hi all, I plan to run a dovecot IMAPS and POPS service on our network. We handle about 3 000 mailboxes. I thought first buying a topnotch server (8 cores and 16 Go RAM) with equalogic iSCSI SAN SAS 15K for storage backend. On second though (and after a comprhensive read of dovecot features), I saw in http://wiki.dovecot.org/MailLocation that index files can be created on a separete local filesystem. My question is : for 3000 users, is it possible to have only a SATA backend attached to my topnotch server (to handle bigger mail quotas) by storing index on local hard drives (SAS drives) ? Extra question, what is the better : iSCSI SATA backend or NFS share ? NFS share is more convenient to have a failover server. Thanks for your help. Regards, -- Nicolas Grenèche - Orléans University - France http://blog.garnett.fr (in french)
