On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 11:17 +0100, Daniel Watts wrote:
> Digging up this thread from 2007. Just had another conversation in my
> company about how to spread old non-accessed files to cheaper slower
> storage.
>
> Is this now feasible? I noticed dbox is now v2.0 but see no reference to
> virtual
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 10:00 +0100, Daniel Watts wrote:
.Folder__1.new
.Folder__1.cur
.Folder__1.tmp
and
.Folder__2.new
.Folder__2.cur
.Folder__2.tmp
with Dovecot merging them before display as just "Folder" within the
mail client.
Virtual folders would enable this, if t
On Saturday, October 13 at 09:25 AM, quoth Daniel W:
Thanks for the insights. Is it also true that to read a single
message in a 800MB mbox, you need to load 800MB of data into memory
which is then searched for that message?
Not at all. If you don't know what message you're looking for, then
On Thu, 2007-10-11 at 10:00 +0100, Daniel Watts wrote:
> .Folder__1.new
> .Folder__1.cur
> .Folder__1.tmp
> and
> .Folder__2.new
> .Folder__2.cur
> .Folder__2.tmp
>
> with Dovecot merging them before display as just "Folder" within the
> mail client.
Virtual folders would enable this, if they'r
On Sat, 2007-10-13 at 09:25 +0100, Daniel W wrote:
> Is it also true that to read a single message
> in a 800MB mbox, you need to load 800MB of data into memory which is
> then searched for that message?
Of course not! That's what an index is for.
Richard
signature.asc
Description: This is a
Kyle Wheeler wrote:
On Friday, October 12 at 11:06 AM, quoth Daniel Watts:
What actually ARE the advantages of a 'one file per folder' format??
It depends on the environment. It's exceedingly efficient at storage: on
a filesystem with 4k blocks, three 1k messages take up 1 block (4k),
where
On Friday, October 12 at 11:06 AM, quoth Daniel Watts:
What actually ARE the advantages of a 'one file per folder' format??
It depends on the environment. It's exceedingly efficient at storage:
on a filesystem with 4k blocks, three 1k messages take up 1 block
(4k), where in a one-file-per-mes
Chris Laif wrote:
On 10/11/07, Daniel Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Timo,
Would there be any sense in giving Dovecot the option to split folders
into multiple subfolders when they reached a specified size (probably
message count) limit?
Many modern file systems offer the possibility
On 10/11/07, Daniel Watts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear Timo,
>
> Would there be any sense in giving Dovecot the option to split folders
> into multiple subfolders when they reached a specified size (probably
> message count) limit?
>
Many modern file systems offer the possibility to use optim
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Daniel Watts wrote:
Dear Timo,
Would there be any sense in giving Dovecot the option to split
folders into multiple subfolders when they reached a specified size
(probably message count) limit?
My understanding is this is partially covered in Timo's "dbox" format,
w
Daniel Watts wrote:
Dear Timo,
Would there be any sense in giving Dovecot the option to split folders
into multiple subfolders when they reached a specified size (probably
message count) limit?
My understanding is this is partially covered in Timo's "dbox" format, which
tries to take the be
Dear Timo,
Would there be any sense in giving Dovecot the option to split folders
into multiple subfolders when they reached a specified size (probably
message count) limit?
Dovecot would monitor folders and when they reached, say, 10,000
messages, silently split the folder on the filesystem
12 matches
Mail list logo
