Geo Carncross wrote:
I guess you get the same results if you take mailboxes with lot of mails.
Most mails were copied into my database by the customers using their
IMAP Client to import old mails. Thunderbird can be used to read mbox
archives p.e. - I don't know if that's faster than dbmail-smtp ?
Probably not. I did a test a few weeks ago with imapsync (same thing)
and its APPEND operations took about the same amount of time.
Imapsync sucks really bad when used on dbmail. It's abyssmal DoS attack on
dbmail was what prompted me to look into 2.0 imap's performance last summer.
Imapsync will SEARCH the *whole* mailbox for that one specific unique
mail-headername (and also unique value) it is about to inject with APPEND!
Seeing is believing when you try to sync a 3GB mailbox with massive attachments
into a 2.0 dbmail setup. It will drop to maybe 3 to 5 messages per second on a
dedicated dual-Xeon/2.8 with 1GB ram.
I knew then that dbmail had a serious problem with imap search. Something I hope
will improve drastically with the header table.
--
________________________________________________________________
Paul Stevens mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
NET FACILITIES GROUP PGP: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The Netherlands________________________________http://www.nfg.nl
