On 2011-10-19 22:35, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> rsync -H will also work, but it can be painful. YMMV.
Unfortunately rsync is not an option since I need to XFER the mailboxes to
do the 2.3=>2.4 index upgrades. That's the only way to do it without long
downtime on a backend that large.
Gr
On 2011-10-19 17:42, Simon Matter wrote:
> I think for the singleinstancestore, you can redo it after migration with
> tools like hardlink or http://www.freedup.org/. IIRC I did this once and
> it worked fine - I think I was using a simple bash script as you suggested
> above. The
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Simon Matter wrote:
> I think for the singleinstancestore, you can redo it after migration with
> tools like hardlink or http://www.freedup.org/. IIRC I did this once and
Indeed you can. AFAIK, once Cyrus IMAP commits a message to disk, its
backing file is not changed
e files with same
>inodes. This can be done at any time and with low impact.
>
> I think that should be pretty safe if the script has enough safty belts in
> place. Mails moved or deleted in the meantime are a special case. Don't
> know
> if it's worth to
Ramprasad wrote, on 19.10.2011 15:37:
> I think , writing a standalone index upgrade utility , like the ipurge ,
> seems to be a reasonable thing to do
>
>
> If there was a light enough index upgrade possible ( only for inboxes ..
> not subfolders ) Then I could stop cyrus , fork probably around
On Wed, 2011-10-19 at 13:38 +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote:
> Bron Gondwana wrote, on 19.10.2011 12:27:
> > On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:18 PM, "Wolfgang Breyha"
> > wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> Is singleinstancestore obsolete/usel
Bron Gondwana wrote, on 19.10.2011 12:27:
> On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:18 PM, "Wolfgang Breyha"
> wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Is singleinstancestore obsolete/useless in 2.4.(12)?
>>
>> This option is read into "singleinstance" in lmtpd.c
On Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:18 PM, "Wolfgang Breyha"
wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Is singleinstancestore obsolete/useless in 2.4.(12)?
>
> This option is read into "singleinstance" in lmtpd.c and nntpd.c, but never
> used afterwards? Or did I miss something se
Hi!
Is singleinstancestore obsolete/useless in 2.4.(12)?
This option is read into "singleinstance" in lmtpd.c and nntpd.c, but never
used afterwards? Or did I miss something searching the source?
Greetings, Wolfgang
--
Wolfgang Breyha | http://www.blafasel.at/
Vienna Universit
Thanks Reinaldo,
My problem is with MTA ( postfix ).
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Reinaldo de Carvalho
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Lucas Zinato Carraro
> wrote:
>> singleinstancestore: 1
> [...]
>> This option works ? This option is supported when usi
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Lucas Zinato Carraro
wrote:
> singleinstancestore: 1
[...]
> This option works ? This option is supported when using lmtpproxyd( murder )
> ?
> I dont see any difference when i enable this.
Its works. But the MTA must send recipients in the same
Le 23/12/2010 03:47, Adam Tauno Williams a écrit :
> On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 00:00 -0200, Lucas Zinato Carraro wrote:
>> Hi,
>> i found this option in man imapd.conf
>>
>> singleinstancestore: 1
>>
>> If enabled, imapd, lmtpd and nntpd attempt
On Thu, 2010-12-23 at 00:00 -0200, Lucas Zinato Carraro wrote:
> Hi,
> i found this option in man imapd.conf
> ....
> singleinstancestore: 1
>
> If enabled, imapd, lmtpd and nntpd attempt to only write one copy of a
> message per partition and create hard
Hi,
i found this option in man imapd.conf
singleinstancestore: 1
If enabled, imapd, lmtpd and nntpd attempt to only write one copy of a
message per partition and create hard links, resulting in a
potentially large disk savings.
This option works
Hi,
I'm seeing a big difference in used space on my replicas and masters.
Given the facts
- that a mailbox is in sync;
- I'm using the same configuration on master and replica;
I can only see that the hard link count of certain files don't match.
I can easily see how this can happen and don't s
s. I've been migrating them with some perl and
> the mailbox move stuff in cyradm to four new partitions of 75GB each and
> I'm finding that I'm very quickly running out of space due to the
> breaking up of the singleinstancestore storage gains.
>
> To remedy this, I
them with some perl and
the mailbox move stuff in cyradm to four new partitions of 75GB each and
I'm finding that I'm very quickly running out of space due to the
breaking up of the singleinstancestore storage gains.
To remedy this, I'm thinking about traversing the mailboxes on each
e aliases(5) table which
is used only for local(8) delivery.
lmtp delivery with single instance works well here with ldap based virtual
aliases.
Simon
Thanks
John
John McMonagle wrote:
Trying to get singleinstancestore to work.
Using debian sarge with postfix and cyrus 2.1.18
ke the aliases(5) table which
is used only for local(8) delivery.
lmtp delivery with single instance works well here with ldap based virtual
aliases.
Simon
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
> John McMonagle wrote:
>
>> Trying to get singleinstancesto
al with when changing the
local_transport to lmtp?
Thanks
John
John McMonagle wrote:
Trying to get singleinstancestore to work.
Using debian sarge with postfix and cyrus 2.1.18-1.
Been searching through this list and goggle.
maps are:
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
local_recipient_maps = $alias_map
Trying to get singleinstancestore to work.
Using debian sarge with postfix and cyrus 2.1.18-1.
Been searching through this list and goggle.
maps are:
alias_maps = hash:/etc/aliases
local_recipient_maps = $alias_maps, ldap:/etc/postfix/ldap-users.cf,
hash:/etc/postfix/local-accounts
Okay, unfortunately we have to stick with procmail as sieve is
not up to the task of some of the complex filtering we do.
--
---
Paul Rainesemail: raines at nmr.mgh.harvard.edu
MGH/MIT/HMS Athinoula A. Martinos Center for
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Paul Raines wrote:
How does singleinstancestore figure out messages that can be
hard linked? It doesn't seem to do it by message-id across mailboxes.
If I send email to a mailman list with all my users, that mail
goes into their mailboxes individually (not hard link
How does singleinstancestore figure out messages that can be
hard linked? It doesn't seem to do it by message-id across mailboxes.
If I send email to a mailman list with all my users, that mail
goes into their mailboxes individually (not hard linked as a single
instance) even though the me
Jeremy,
Sorry it took so long for me to respond.
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Jeremy Rumpf wrote:
[snip...]
> From the TMS docs:
Thanks! I asked out TSM folks here too, they came by with the manual. :)
Slight difference, we use the backup / restore portion of TSM on
our mail servers. It has the sam
Ken Murchison wrote:
Does anyone out there actually disable singleinstancestore, and if so why?
Rob and I are working on some code changes and as part of them are
considering just having SIS always enabled. Is this going to create a
problem for any installations?
Never mind, I have already
Bill Earle wrote:
Ken,
We do NOT use singleinstancestore. We have several partitions for
spools. Is the feature intelligent enough to determine which spools
are on the same partition and hardlink those and create individual
files for spools on separate partitions?
Yes it is, and has been.
- we
Ken,
We do NOT use singleinstancestore. We have several partitions for
spools. Is the feature intelligent enough to determine which spools
are on the same partition and hardlink those and create individual
files for spools on separate partitions?
- we use qmail and the deliver program, which is
Alexey Melnikov wrote:
Ken Murchison wrote:
Does anyone out there actually disable singleinstancestore, and if so
why?
Rob and I are working on some code changes and as part of them are
considering just having SIS always enabled. Is this going to create a
problem for any installations
Does anyone out there actually disable singleinstancestore, and if so why?
Rob and I are working on some code changes and as part of them are
considering just having SIS always enabled. Is this going to create a
problem for any installations?
--
Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 17:00, Earl R Shannon wrote:
> I may have made an invalid assumption. The perl script I mentioned
> in my last post runs on the IMAP server itself. No need for an
> MTA to get involved. I assumed the initial poster was doing the
> same. BTW, deliver is simply a wrapper to lmtp
rus handles this case properly and makes another
inode.
Thanks. I suppose I'll just stay below that value.
Earl Shannon wrote:
We use a perl script to do what we call a "broadcast".
It loops through and delivers to each individual user.
Separately? In that case singleinstancestore doe
7;ing another file, but it makes
using LMTP easier.
Regards,
Earl Shannon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
we've got Cyrus 2.1.16 running on Red Hat AS 2.1 with singleinstancestore
and it's working well. A common case is that mails will have up to 5
On Tue, Jan 13, 2004 at 03:29:43PM +0100, Kjetil Torgrim Homme wrote:
> > - can I invoke "deliver" with such a long argument list? If not, is there
> > an alternative?
>
> don't use deliver(8), use LMTP. it's much more reliable.
In this case, the MTA must accept a recipient list that long (in h
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> we've got Cyrus 2.1.16 running on Red Hat AS 2.1 with singleinstancestore
> and it's working well. A common case is that mails will have up to 5
> recipients:
>
> -rw---5 cyrusmail 3754 Jan 13 11:13
dorn wrote:
Hi,
we've got Cyrus 2.1.16 running on Red Hat AS 2.1 with
singleinstancestore and it's working well. A common case is that mails
will have up to 5 recipients:
-rw---5 cyrusmail 3754 Jan 13 11:13
/var/spool/imap/S/user/a0620/88222.
We haven't
On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 13:02, Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> - can a single inode have 30,000+ links? We're using ext3 as this is the
> only file system supported by Red Hat.
from /usr/include/linux/ext3_fs.h:
/*
* Maximal count of links to a file
*/
#define EXT3_LINK_MAX 32000
I don't
Hi,
we've got Cyrus 2.1.16 running on Red Hat AS 2.1 with singleinstancestore
and it's working well. A common case is that mails will have up to 5
recipients:
-rw---5 cyrusmail 3754 Jan 13 11:13
/var/spool/imap/S/user/a0620/88222.
We haven't yet moved
38 matches
Mail list logo
