Hy!
On 21-May-2001 Amos Gouaux wrote:
> nj> I think the file close should be equal to a sync. Am I right?
>
> not necessarily.
Ok, I'll fix it.
> nj> with 300'000 folders, and 4-5000 active users (daily). Cross your fingers
> ;)
>
> perhaps your users are the ones that should cross their
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 17:53:34 +0200 (CEST),
> Noll Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nj) writes:
nj> So far, so good ;)
that's good.
nj> To think of it, maybe Berkeley DB could be used. It might even be better... if
nj> you can specify it the amount of cache memory to use.
just doing a qui
> On Mon, 21 May 2001 10:45:14 +0200 (CEST),
> Noll Janos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (nj) writes:
nj> You might be right, but fsync() might not be needed.
why gamble on something so crucial? this is inviting disaster.
nj> I think the file close should be equal to a sync. Am I right?
not
> even
>then, every imapd process must read and process some of the data.
>
>
> But back to my daemon, I must emphasise, that this is only an actual
>implementation of the "socket" mail-folder db prot
e
caching.
The picture:
+-------+ ++
| IMAPD + socket_db |--socket--| mailbox-daemon |
+---+ ++
I defined a small "protocol" for the communication.
An example:
Oops, I wanted to reply to the list, but instead, I replied to the one posing
the question.
By the way, I found two bugs in my mailbox-daemon, so expect the next version
posted soon (if anyone's interested ;-)
-
sage -
From: "Noll Janos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 5:10 PM
Subject: mailbox-daemon
> Hy!
>
> Until now, cyrus could handle either a text file folderlist (mailboxes)
or a
> DB3 folderlist (mailboxes.db). But now it ca
tabase and does
caching. Although this could be done by modifying cyrus code, in some systems
it would be faster, as the mailbox-daemon would not need to reconnect to the
database for each cyrus instance and it could live on just one db connection.
I'll try to release a 0.2 version in one or t
