On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 08:46 +, Ed W wrote:
> On 27/02/2012 08:34, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 01:41 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >
> >> What do you need the statistics for? I could make imap_client and
> >> pop3_client support some virtual methods, like user.destroy() initia
On 27/02/2012 08:34, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 01:41 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
What do you need the statistics for? I could make imap_client and
pop3_client support some virtual methods, like user.destroy() initially,
which would be enough for your use. I guess I could add th
On Thu, 2012-02-23 at 01:41 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> What do you need the statistics for? I could make imap_client and
> pop3_client support some virtual methods, like user.destroy() initially,
> which would be enough for your use. I guess I could add that for v2.2.
http://dovecot.org/patche
On 22/02/2012 23:56, Ed W wrote:
I think it has potential though. I think a lot of the current plugins
on the website could easily be rewritten, likely without performance
concerns, using a scripting based plugin system. I could see that
some other big picture pieces could potentially benefit
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 23:56 +, Ed W wrote:
> On 22/02/2012 23:41, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > I've heard LUA being a commonly used embedded language, but I'd prefer
> > to instead support several very widely used languages, such as
> > Perl/Python.
>
> I'm a perl/ruby fan myself, but I would stil
On 22/02/2012 23:41, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I've heard LUA being a commonly used embedded language, but I'd prefer
to instead support several very widely used languages, such as
Perl/Python.
I'm a perl/ruby fan myself, but I would still recommend a good look at
lua (or python) simply because the
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 22:54 +, Ed W wrote:
> >> Quick followup question - the logout log file currently logs a bunch of
> >> statistics such as mails read/deleted, bytes sent/received. How might I
> >> access these from the _deinit context as above? Apologies if this is a
> >> RTFM questio
On 22/02/2012 19:49, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 22.2.2012, at 11.38, Ed W wrote:
void postlogout_init(struct module *module) { }
void postlogout_deinit(void) {
system("/usr/local/bin/dovecot-postlogout.sh");
}
Add a few missing #includes and compile and enable for imap/pop3 and that
should be
On 22.2.2012, at 11.38, Ed W wrote:
>> void postlogout_init(struct module *module) { }
>> void postlogout_deinit(void) {
>> system("/usr/local/bin/dovecot-postlogout.sh");
>> }
>>
>> Add a few missing #includes and compile and enable for imap/pop3 and that
>> should be it.
>
> Thanks - that's
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 09:31:55AM +, Ed W wrote:
>
> It seems intuitive that the proxy installed locally could save you
> 2x RTT increment, which is about 0.8ms in your case. So I might
> expect the proxy to reduce rendering times by around 1.6ms simply
> because it reduces the number of rou
On 21/02/2012 20:36, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 21.2.2012, at 16.33, Ed W wrote:
I'm also pleased to see that there is little negative cost in using a proxy... I recently added
imap-proxy to our webmail setup because I wanted to log "last login + logout" times. I
haven't quite figured out how t
On 22/02/2012 08:25, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:33:24PM +, Ed W wrote:
I think the original question was still sensible. In your case it
seems like the ping times are identical between:
webmail -> imap-proxy
webmail -> imap server
I think your results
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 02:33:24PM +, Ed W wrote:
>
> I think the original question was still sensible. In your case it
> seems like the ping times are identical between:
> webmail -> imap-proxy
> webmail -> imap server
>
> I think your results show that a proxy has little (or negati
On 21.2.2012, at 16.33, Ed W wrote:
> I'm also pleased to see that there is little negative cost in using a
> proxy... I recently added imap-proxy to our webmail setup because I wanted to
> log "last login + logout" times. I haven't quite figured out how to best log
> "logout time" (Timo, any
On 13/02/2012 19:43, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:08:48AM -0800, Mark Moseley wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you running dovecot locally on those webmail
servers as well, or is it talking to remote dovecot servers?
The webmail servers are talking with dovecot director ser
On 14.2.2012, at 5.30, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
>> Actually, this could probably be safely implemented by sending all of the
>> state to the client as a string:
>>
>> * OK [SAVEDSTATE base64-encoded-state]
>>
>> There isn't a whole lot of state to be saved really. Mailbox GUID,
>> UIDVALIDITY,
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
On 14.2.2012, at 5.19, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
b login (SAVEDSTATE 1234567890) user pass
I guess the drawback for this approach is that you are explicitly
breaking the LOGIN definition.
No breaking, extending :)
Heh. I should know better after reading about 10
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
On 13.2.2012, at 23.32, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Perhaps a way for (trusted) clients to be able to do this? :)
a logout save
* OK [SAVEDSTATE 1234567890]
* BYE logged out
a OK
Actually, this could probably be safely implemented by sending all
of the state to the client
On 14.2.2012, at 5.19, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
>> b login (SAVEDSTATE 1234567890) user pass
>
> I guess the drawback for this approach is that you are explicitly breaking
> the LOGIN definition.
No breaking, extending :)
> And you don't allow reviving the state if using the AUTHENTICATE com
Quoting Timo Sirainen :
On 13.2.2012, at 22.24, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
http://lists.horde.org/archives/imp/Week-of-Mon-20110523/052316.html
http://lists.horde.org/archives/imp/Week-of-Mon-20110523/052317.html
These posts neglect the fact that you don't need to issue a
CAPABILITY command i
Quoting Jan-Frode Myklebust :
BTW: do you also have information on the state of select caching in the
up-imapproxy? I got some very negative comments when googling it, and the
changelog didn't suggest there had been any improvements since..
I wouldn't trust it. IIRC, it was added years ago an
On 13.2.2012, at 23.32, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> Perhaps a way for (trusted) clients to be able to do this? :)
>
> a logout save
> * OK [SAVEDSTATE 1234567890]
> * BYE logged out
> a OK
Actually, this could probably be safely implemented by sending all of the state
to the client as a string:
* O
On 13.2.2012, at 22.24, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
> http://lists.horde.org/archives/imp/Week-of-Mon-20110523/052316.html
> http://lists.horde.org/archives/imp/Week-of-Mon-20110523/052317.html
>
> These posts neglect the fact that you don't need to issue a CAPABILITY
> command if the connection is
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 01:24:25PM -0700, Michael M Slusarz wrote:
>
> Except you are most likely NOT leveraging the truly interesting part
> of imapproxy - the ability to restore the IMAP connection state via
> the XPROXYREUSE status response. This is a significant performance
> improvement sinc
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:57:31PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> >
> > $ doveconf maildir_very_dirty_syncs
> > maildir_very_dirty_syncs = yes
> >
> > but I don't think this gave the advantage I was expecting.. Was
> > expecting this to move most iops to the index-luns, but the maildir
> >
Quoting Jan-Frode Myklebust :
We've been collecting some stats to see what kind of benefits
UP/SquirrelMail's IMAP Proxy in for our SOGo webmail users. Dovecot is
running in High-performance mode http://wiki2.dovecot.org/LoginProcess
with authentication caching http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentic
On 13.2.2012, at 21.36, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
>> Other things that would be interesting to try out (both from latency and
>> disk IO usage point of view):
>>
>> - maildir_very_dirty_syncs
>
> We already have
>
> $ doveconf maildir_very_dirty_syncs
> maildir_very_dirty_syncs =
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 11:08:48AM -0800, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
> Out of curiosity, are you running dovecot locally on those webmail
> servers as well, or is it talking to remote dovecot servers?
The webmail servers are talking with dovecot director servers which in
turn are talking with the back
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 04:14:22PM +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> > The responstimes are not very fast, but they do seem to support
> > the claim that an imapproxy isn't needed for dovecot.
>
> That's what I always suspected, but good to have someone actually test it. :)
> This is with Maildir?
Y
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:54 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> We've been collecting some stats to see what kind of benefits
> UP/SquirrelMail's IMAP Proxy in for our SOGo webmail users. Dovecot is
> running in High-performance mode http://wiki2.dovecot.org/LoginProcess
> with authentication cachin
On 13.2.2012, at 15.54, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
> The responstimes are not very fast, but they do seem to support
> the claim that an imapproxy isn't needed for dovecot.
That's what I always suspected, but good to have someone actually test it. :)
This is with Maildir?
Other things that woul
We've been collecting some stats to see what kind of benefits
UP/SquirrelMail's IMAP Proxy in for our SOGo webmail users. Dovecot is
running in High-performance mode http://wiki2.dovecot.org/LoginProcess
with authentication caching http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Authentication/Caching
During the weekend
32 matches
Mail list logo
