On 11/26/2012 3:39 PM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> Thanks, all your comments are noted.
>
>> As I said, you can migrate users individually. You could easily do 10
>> users a day during coffee breaks etc and be done in a month plus. Do 40
>> a day and you're done in 10 days. The only time you'll bur
Thanks, all your comments are noted.
As I said, you can migrate users individually. You could easily do 10
users a day during coffee breaks etc and be done in a month plus. Do 40
a day and you're done in 10 days. The only time you'll burn is in the
learning curve, not the actual mailbox migra
On 11/26/2012 1:58 PM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
>
>> So this is a step in the right direction. But still far less than
>> optimal. The read/write lock contention on mbox is unnecessarily eating
>> up system resources (mainly memory), and causing unnecessary delivery
>> delays to the mailbox. You s
So this is a step in the right direction. But still far less than
optimal. The read/write lock contention on mbox is unnecessarily eating
up system resources (mainly memory), and causing unnecessary delivery
delays to the mailbox. You should really start looking at migrating to
maildir. It's
On 11/23/2012 5:36 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> No they are not on NFS storage, the mailboxes are stored on the local
> filesystem.
Ok, good.
> Thank you I will try this. I did read that when using Postfix and
> Dovecot, both systems should use a matching locking mechanism, which I
> had already
On 23/11/2012 06:07, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 11/22/2012 3:26 PM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
Output of dovecot -n is as follows:
# 1.0.7: /etc/dovecot.conf
login_dir: /var/run/dovecot/login
login_executable(default): /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap-login
login_executable(imap): /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap-lo
On 11/22/2012 3:26 PM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> Output of dovecot -n is as follows:
>
> # 1.0.7: /etc/dovecot.conf
> login_dir: /var/run/dovecot/login
> login_executable(default): /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap-login
> login_executable(imap): /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap-login
> login_executable(pop3): /us
Output of dovecot -n is as follows:
# 1.0.7: /etc/dovecot.conf
login_dir: /var/run/dovecot/login
login_executable(default): /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap-login
login_executable(imap): /usr/libexec/dovecot/imap-login
login_executable(pop3): /usr/libexec/dovecot/pop3-login
mail_privileged_group: mail
m
On 11/12/2012 5:15 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> Thanks for your replies. I switched to Dovecot LDA this morning, but
> the issue still persists, albeit logged slightly differently by Dovecot
> now instead of Postfix:
>
> "save failed to INBOX: Timeout while waiting for lock"
>
> The reason is bec
On 11/10/2012 2:25 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> The usual meaning of 'lock contention' is 'two processes legitimately
> competing for the *same* lock'.
Sure, this is the textbook definition, and software designers will
discuss it as such in that context. However, when systems users use the
term, in a
On 08/11/2012 23:53, Ben Morrow wrote:
At 3AM -0600 on 8/11/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
1.0.7 is absolutely ancient and no longer officially supported. You
need 1.2.x minimum, 2.x.x even better. And you say you just recently
upgraded your Linux distro? What planet do you live on son? Yo
At 12PM -0600 on 10/11/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
> On 11/8/2012 5:53 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> > At 3AM -0600 on 8/11/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
> >>
> >> LDA completely eliminates lock contention.
> >
> > As we have discussed before, using the LDA does not prevent lock
> > contention, it j
On 11/8/2012 5:53 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
> At 3AM -0600 on 8/11/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
>>
>> 1.0.7 is absolutely ancient and no longer officially supported. You
>> need 1.2.x minimum, 2.x.x even better. And you say you just recently
>> upgraded your Linux distro? What planet do you live
At 3AM -0600 on 8/11/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
>
> 1.0.7 is absolutely ancient and no longer officially supported. You
> need 1.2.x minimum, 2.x.x even better. And you say you just recently
> upgraded your Linux distro? What planet do you live on son? You're a
> few light years behind cu
Please always reply to the list, not individuals.
On 11/8/2012 4:17 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> On 08/11/2012 09:23, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
>> On 11/8/2012 2:29 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> We're using Dovecot version 1.0.7 and Postfix, and since upgrading our
>>> Linux box we're
On 11/8/2012 2:29 AM, 1st WebDesigns wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> We're using Dovecot version 1.0.7 and Postfix, and since upgrading our
> Linux box we're getting this in the maillog:
1.0.7 is absolutely ancient and no longer officially supported. You
need 1.2.x minimum, 2.x.x even better. And you sa
Hi there,
We're using Dovecot version 1.0.7 and Postfix, and since upgrading our
Linux box we're getting this in the maillog:
Nov 8 07:49:11 server1 postfix/local[27901]: 04B8E7081DA:
to=, orig_to=, relay=local, delay=19,
delays=0.07/0/0/19, dsn=4.2.0, status=deferred (cannot update mailbox
17 matches
Mail list logo
