I have to second, third, and fourth that. We moved from Courier to Dovecot and the performance change was dramatic. We have 5,000+ accounts on 2 clustered (active / active) servers utilizing GFS for the file system on a SAS SAN and the fact that Dovecot had built in support for clustered setups was a major plus. Had a few issues off the bat with POP3 UID's but quickly fixed that one thanks to Dovecots easy to change UID definitions. Don't think I'll ever change back.
-- Ed McLain ________________________________ From: Rick Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: <vchkpw@inter7.com> Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:08:54 -0600 To: <vchkpw@inter7.com> Conversation: [vchkpw] [OT] IMAP Servers: Dovecot or Binc? Subject: Re: [vchkpw] [OT] IMAP Servers: Dovecot or Binc? On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:11 -0800, Tom Collins wrote: > Courier-IMAP seems to be putting a heavy load on my server when > someone accesses a mailbox with a large number of messages in it. > > What's the preferred IMAP server for a machine that will have 100-200 > connections (plan for growth...) but may have an occasional mailbox > with 1000+ messages in it. I've searched the archives and tried to > google for "imap server performance" and "imap server comparison" but > haven't come up with much after an hour. > My impression is that Dovecot performs well, better than courier, but > I'm wondering if anyone can offer up some real-world numbers to help > me make my decision. Dovecot has really come out in the past year or so. I started with .99, I upgraded from Courier, but honestly it wasn't really up to date. Dovecot's indexing showed an immediate improvement on large mailboxes. With 1.0.5, the only issue I have is with a few older Mac clients. For me this affects about 4 out of 450 clients total. I don't have any numbers, but I've had at least 1500 messages in my INBOX, not including subfolders, with great performance. The change was so dramatic I didn't need any numbers. Rick !DSPAM:4769e6cf310541743218427!