On 2010-05-26 1:21 PM, Mark Moseley wrote:
> I've attached a slightly cropped rrd graph of NFS read bytes/sec on 6
> mail netapps from one of our datacenters. See if you can spot where we
> started moving IMAP to dovecot over the course of about a month :)
Wow, that's impressive... we had similar
On Tue, 2010-05-25 at 23:27 -0700, Tim Traver wrote:
> >> Since Exim wouldn't be touching the index files, is it safe to leave
> >> exim as-is and let it handle the deliveries to the maildirs natively?
> >> Exim's already got access to everything it needs including the quota.
> >> I just want to ma
On 3/17/2010 1:21 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:19 -0700, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>
>> Since Exim wouldn't be touching the index files, is it safe to leave
>> exim as-is and let it handle the deliveries to the maildirs natively?
>> Exim's already got access to everything it n
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 3:12 PM, Mark Moseley wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> I don't know if anyone has run local indexes in larger setups, so I
>> can't really give any good answers. The worst case of rebuilding the
>> whole index isn't anyway any worse than w
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 12:15 -0700, Mark Moseley wrote:
>> From the wiki and from the
>> thread, it sounds like this just affects index files. One thing I
>> didn't see in the thread (though it'd be easy to miss in a thread that
>> long) is w
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:27 -0700, Mark Moseley wrote:
> I'll definitely keep that in mind. I should be able to keep things
> pretty segregated in terms of POP3 alone or IMAP alone but my big
> worry is that Courier POP3+Dovecot IMAP scenario.
I know a large installation that was (is?) using Dov
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Tony Rutherford wrote:
> On 3/16/2010 7:36 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
>>
>> On 17.3.2010, at 1.01, Mark Moseley wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> * Since Dovecot 2.0 seems like it's just around the corner, that's all
>>> I've been testing, and indeed all I've even looked at.
>>>
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 13:19 -0700, Mark Moseley wrote:
> Since Exim wouldn't be touching the index files, is it safe to leave
> exim as-is and let it handle the deliveries to the maildirs natively?
> Exim's already got access to everything it needs including the quota.
> I just want to make sure I
Oops, forgot to ask one other thing
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 17.3.2010, at 1.01, Mark Moseley wrote:
>> * Exim: We currently deliver all of our mail via Exim on separate
>> servers. Our POP3/IMAP servers only do POP3/IMAP and the Exim mail
>> servers deliver
On Wed, 2010-03-17 at 12:15 -0700, Mark Moseley wrote:
> >> * Our #1 main motivation for looking Dovecot is relief for our
> >> currently overtaxed NFS servers, mostly in the form of the index
> >> files. Benchmarking dovecot looks great, even with the index files in
> >> the maildir.
> >
> > Have
On 3/16/2010 7:36 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 17.3.2010, at 1.01, Mark Moseley wrote:
* Since Dovecot 2.0 seems like it's just around the corner, that's all
I've been testing, and indeed all I've even looked at.
Yes, hopefully it's coming soon :)
* Our #1 main motivation for lo
First off, thanks for the reply. I appreciate it greatly!
On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 17.3.2010, at 1.01, Mark Moseley wrote:
>
>> * Since Dovecot 2.0 seems like it's just around the corner, that's all
>> I've been testing, and indeed all I've even looked at.
>
> Ye
On 17.3.2010, at 1.01, Mark Moseley wrote:
> * Since Dovecot 2.0 seems like it's just around the corner, that's all
> I've been testing, and indeed all I've even looked at.
Yes, hopefully it's coming soon :)
> * Our #1 main motivation for looking Dovecot is relief for our
> currently overtaxed N
Hello to the list! I've been asked to spec out the feasibility and, if
feasible, plan a migration from Courier to Dovecot for both POP3 and
IMAP for about 4 million mailboxes. I've been trying to absorb all the
dovecot-related info I could over the past couple of weeks from the
docs and from the li
pod wrote:
> Richard Hobbs writes:
>
>> 19. Once everything is working perfectly, send an email to the entire
>> company instructing them what to do after the outage and arrange an
>> outage and do the following steps as soon as the outage begins:
>>
>> a. Unplug DMZ switch from firewall to
Richard Hobbs writes:
> 19. Once everything is working perfectly, send an email to the entire
> company instructing them what to do after the outage and arrange an
> outage and do the following steps as soon as the outage begins:
>
> a. Unplug DMZ switch from firewall to make delivered mail
Hello again, people,
I have been reading all of the emails sent back and forth recently, and
reading many web pages, and I have a new draft of my migration plan. If
anyone has the time and generosity to read through this latest plan for
me and let me know if you spot any potential problems with it
On F 15 May, 2009, at 12:30 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
well, using an LDA makes a little more cumbersome to check the
local recipient at RCPT time.
Huh? exim won't try local deliver unless it has decided it is a
local recipient. You won't get ove
Seth Mattinen, 2009-05-15 09:39:
(right?) and so can dovecot, so should i use dovecot's "deliver"
mechanism, or exim's own internal mechanism?
Only dovecot 'deliver' will update the index on delivery.
That's obvious. But dovecot (AFAIK) updates (not rebuilds) indexes when
it sees new message
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Richard Hobbs wrote:
>> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>>> Phillip Macey wrote:
On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
>> The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
>> 5000 emails in it takes a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:28:42AM +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
[...]
> > Only dovecot 'deliver' will update the index on delivery.
>
> Do does this mean that it's slightly slower to actually deliver the mail
> with dovecot (because it's writing two
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Richard Hobbs wrote:
>> Curtis Maloney wrote:
>>> Phillip Macey wrote:
> Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder
> are a wimp. Problems start if the user:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment -
all I c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
well, using an LDA makes a little more cumbersome to check the local
recipient at RCPT time.
Huh? exim won't try local deliver unless it has decided it is a local
recipient. You won't get overquota sta
On F 15 May, 2009, at 09:39 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
This raises an interesting question for me actually... given that
we've
now decided dovecot and maildir is the way forward for us, which
delivery method should we use in exim? exim can support maildir,
(right?) and so can dovecot, so should i
Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Seth Mattinen wrote:
>> Phillip Macey wrote:
>>> On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
> The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
> 5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount
Seth Mattinen wrote:
> Phillip Macey wrote:
>> On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount of coaxing will
convinc
Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Curtis Maloney wrote:
>> Phillip Macey wrote:
Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder
are a wimp. Problems start if the user:
>>> We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment -
>>> all I can put it down to is the larg
Curtis Maloney wrote:
> Phillip Macey wrote:
>>> Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder
>>> are a wimp. Problems start if the user:
>
>> We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment -
>> all I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs.
On 15/05/2009 10:33 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Phillip Macey wrote:
On 15/05/2009 9:49 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you have POP3 users? What clients do your users typically use?
50% pop. 50% imap.. Roughly.
With POP3 users those kinds of I/O bursts can happen wh
On May 14, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Phillip Macey wrote:
On 15/05/2009 9:49 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 09:35 +1000, Phillip Macey wrote:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment
- all I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg.
`ls -l
On 15/05/2009 9:49 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 09:35 +1000, Phillip Macey wrote:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment - all
I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls -ld
Maildir/cur` might show a directory >20Mb in size
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 09:35 +1000, Phillip Macey wrote:
> We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment - all
> I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls -ld
> Maildir/cur` might show a directory >20Mb in size for some of our users
> (20-30k emails).
>
Phillip Macey wrote:
> On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
>>> The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
>>> 5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount of coaxing will
>>> convince them to split their inbox
Phillip Macey wrote:
Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder are
a wimp. Problems start if the user:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment - all
I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls -ld
Maildir/cur` might show
On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount of coaxing will
convince them to split their inbox into multiple folders.
Oh, we ser
I'd point out that the big *practical* issue with mbox is the reality of
big inboxes. While you can restrict the hoi polloi to something limited
like a quota of under 60MB (and remember that inbox is one big honking
file), the powers that be will not allow themselves to be so
limited...nor wil
On 5/14/2009, Steffen Kaiser (skdove...@smail.inf.fh-brs.de) wrote:
> b) try to move all their 20'000+ messages at once to an archive
> folder once a year, when their quota limit is exceeded. This can make
> the whole server irresponsible slow, because I have the mail_log
> plugin running as well.
Richard Hobbs wrote:
>
> That's also good to know... i like to do a job right instead of relying
> on faster hardware, as i'm sure you all do too, but it's good to know
> that if i make one or two "non-optimal" choices along the way, it'll
> probably be lightning fast anyway!
>
> The main complai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
difference for you. A single server with recent hardware should be able
to easily handle hundreds of simultaneous users.
That's also good to know... i like to do a job right instead of relying
on faster ha
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 09:56 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> > mbox - "slow" to delete mails - indexing will help this problem, but the
> > filesystem will still have work to do in order to join the two halves of
> > the file.
> Actually, I think a new file is written with everything re-written except t
on 5-13-2009 8:55 AM Richard Hobbs spake the following:
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On May 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
>>
Depends on the usage, but it's significantly better performing than
UW-IMAP. Dovecot+mbox is also significantly faster than UW-IMAP+mbox.
>>> OK... so Dov
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On May 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
>
>>> Depends on the usage, but it's significantly better performing than
>>> UW-IMAP. Dovecot+mbox is also significantly faster than UW-IMAP+mbox.
>>
>> OK... so Dovecot is certainly significantly faster that uw-imapd in bot
On May 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Depends on the usage, but it's significantly better performing than
UW-IMAP. Dovecot+mbox is also significantly faster than UW-IMAP+mbox.
OK... so Dovecot is certainly significantly faster that uw-imapd in
both
cases, but is dovecot fastest
Hi All,
Replies to everyone below (to keep the number of emails down)...
Ed W wrote:
> Richard Hobbs wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware
>> to another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize
>> things.
>>
>
> Can I recommend you
Richard Hobbs wrote:
My colleague has mentioned something of interest... can dovecot keep the
index files in RAM? If so, the performance will obviously be *so* much
better than running them off the hard disks.
My understanding was that in-memory indicies are discarded on logout.
They're of ben
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
Can I recommend you add virtualisation to your todo list. I use
linux-vserver, but there are plenty other ideas out ther
On May 12, 2009, at 6:41 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Single-dbox is the highest performing, but note that it's not as
much
tested as mbox and Maildir code. I think it should work ok, but
I'm not
aware of any larger installations using dbox currently. So in case
you
find a problem, you might ha
Blast, forgot something: the "Simple.pm" referenced in the script is
this thing:
http://search.cpan.org/~jpaf/Net-IMAP-Simple-0.93/Simple.pm
Download it, compile it, put it somewhere that the script can find it.
I don't know whether this would help with the migration, but I
routinely solve a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:09:06AM +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Hello,
[...]
> That'd good to know. Do you happen to know where I can get a copy of
> this "external script" you speak of? Will it simply be included in the
> debian package (probably)?
I don't know whether this would help with the migration, but I routinely
solve a similar problem. I have implemented mail failover between two
servers -- which are configured with identical sets of mailboxes -- and
every 10 minutes or so, a script grabs any E-Mails from the other server
and st
Sorry people - i'm replying to my own email again... my reply is below!
Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Timo Sirainen wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:05 +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
>>> another and we wou
Hello,
Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:05 +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
>> another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
>> As a result, we would like to replace "uw-imapd"
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:05 +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
> another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
> As a result, we would like to replace "uw-imapd" and "qpopper" with
> "dovecot". The
Hello,
Apologies for replying to my own email so soon, but I've had other
thoughts as well...
Our server is going to have 4 hard disks. These can be configured into 2
RAID 1 (mirror) arrays, a single RAID 5 array, or a single RAID 0+1 array.
Previously, we thought that two RAID 1 arrays would be
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
As a result, we would like to replace "uw-imapd" and "qpopper" with
"dovecot". The version we will be installing is 1.1.13-2, as this is
what is avail
55 matches
Mail list logo
