El 05/07/12 16:46, Timo Sirainen escribió:
On 5.7.2012, at 15.55, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
Concluding... in my systems, with users with hugh mail folders
(thousands of mails) in maildir format, disabling rdirplus with mount options
(mount option nordirplus) increases performance (maybe w
I don't think there are NFS special options on NetApp filers
but you can use ethernet jumbo frames to boost network
access between your server and the filer.
You also can use iSCSI between server and filer but it will
waste a lot of disk space on the Ontap volume.
I use NFS between a FreeBSD se
this is small folders. From my practice average are 1-2 mails. Huge
are over 15.
did tests with artifically created million mail folder.
except i needed to rise vsize limit of dovecot process in config , and
except first index creation it works smooth with dovecot taking littl
Timo,
For Netapp NFS mailstorage, what options can use for mount point
nfs? for better perfomance with huge maildir folders? (most of my
customers use pop3 protocol instead imap) Any kernel customize? All of
my mta servers is Centos 6
Regards
El 05-07-2012 10:46, Timo Sirainen escribi
On 5.7.2012, at 15.55, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
> Concluding... in my systems, with users with hugh mail folders
> (thousands of mails) in maildir format, disabling rdirplus with mount options
> (mount option nordirplus) increases performance (maybe we could do more
> precise test and this c
(thousands of mails) in maildir format,
this is small folders. From my practice average are 1-2 mails.
Huge are over 15.
On 5.7.2012, at 15.55, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
> I think you are right. I guess that the differnce between my old system
> (who uses readdir and readdirplus) and the new one (which just uses
> readdirplus) is because of changes on the kernel. For some threads I have
> read (for example, htt
El 04/07/12 23:55, Timo Sirainen escribió:
On 4.7.2012, at 21.49, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
Although nfs configuration is the same, there are a lot of differences
on readdir vs readdirplus nfs operations. In fact, in the old one we have 12%
readdir operations and 3% of readdirplus. And in
El 05/07/12 07:49, Timo Sirainen escribió:
On 5.7.2012, at 8.44, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
El 04/07/12 23:55, Timo Sirainen escribió:
Also maildir_very_dirty_syncs=yes improves performance by reducing readdirs.
It's safe to use as long as only Dovecot is reading the Maildir.
Is it saf
On 5.7.2012, at 8.44, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
> El 04/07/12 23:55, Timo Sirainen escribió:
>
>> Also maildir_very_dirty_syncs=yes improves performance by reducing readdirs.
>> It's safe to use as long as only Dovecot is reading the Maildir.
>>
>
> Is it safe to use it although a user could
El 04/07/12 23:55, Timo Sirainen escribió:
Also maildir_very_dirty_syncs=yes improves performance by reducing readdirs.
It's safe to use as long as only Dovecot is reading the Maildir.
Is it safe to use it although a user could have open simultaneous
sessions in different servers?
--
An
On 4.7.2012, at 21.49, Angel L. Mateo wrote:
> Although nfs configuration is the same, there are a lot of differences
> on readdir vs readdirplus nfs operations. In fact, in the old one we have 12%
> readdir operations and 3% of readdirplus. And in the new one we have 46% of
> readdirplus
Hello,
We are having performance problems trying to migrate our pop/imap
servers to a new version. Our old servers are 4 debian lenny with 5GB of
RAM running of XenServer VMs with kernel 2.6.32-4-amd64 and dovecot
1.1.16. New servers are 4 ubuntu 12.04 with dovecot 2.1.5 running on
vmware vm
13 matches
Mail list logo
