libzdb-2.4 will work fine with the latest git. It may have issues with 
2.3.5 release.

Download link: http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/dist/libzdb-2.4.tar.gz
2.2 link: http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/dist/libzdb-2.2.tar.gz

Give that a shot.

-Jon

Andreja Babic wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I am trying to install dbmail-2.3.5 but without success by now.
>
> What I tried is to install is dbmail-2.3.5 + libzdb-2.5. As there is no 
> libzdb debian package for debian-5.0 I have installed libzdb from source. 
> But, after all I got an error while doing "make all": 
>
> ----error----
> _db.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/libdbmail_la-dm_db.o
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_connect':
> dm_db.c:200: warning: comparison between signed and unsigned
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_exec':
> dm_db.c:315: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_stmt_set_str':
> dm_db.c:398: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_stmt_set_int':
> dm_db.c:403: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_stmt_set_u64':
> dm_db.c:408: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_stmt_set_blob':
> dm_db.c:413: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_stmt_exec':
> dm_db.c:417: error: void value not ignored as it ought to be
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_begin_transaction':
> dm_db.c:477: error: invalid use of void expression
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_commit_transaction':
> dm_db.c:485: error: invalid use of void expression
> dm_db.c: In function 'db_rollback_transaction':
> dm_db.c:496: error: invalid use of void expression
> dm_db.c: In function 'user_idnr_is_delivery_user_idnr':
> dm_db.c:795: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break 
> strict-aliasing rules
> dm_db.c:798: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break 
> strict-aliasing rules
> make[3]: *** [libdbmail_la-dm_db.lo] Error 1
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/dbmail-2.3.5/src'
> make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/dbmail-2.3.5/src'
> make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/local/src/dbmail-2.3.5'
> make: *** [all] Error 2
> ----error----
>
> then I found this thread : 
> http://www.nabble.com/problem-compiling-2.3.5-with-libzdb-2.4-(trunk)-td21558842.html
>  where Paul says that libzdb-2.2 should be used. 
>
> On official site of libzdb there is no chance to download required version: 
> http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/download.html and I found this option:
>
> # svn list http://libzdb.googlecode.com/svn/tags/
> release-2-2/
> release-2-2-1/
> release-2-2-2/
> release-2-2-3/
> release-2-3/
> release-2-4/
> release-2-5/
>
> So, at the end I downloaded required version of libzdb from here svn checkout 
> http://libzdb.googlecode.com/svn/tags/release-2-2 libzdb-2-2 
>
> but there is no configure file. I am stuck here. Any help would be 
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Andreja
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag 
> von Andreja Babic
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2009 09:37
> An: DBMail mailinglist
> Betreff: Re: [Dbmail] dbmail performance test
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Interesting idea. I will do so and let you know the results.
>
> Andreja
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im Auftrag 
> von Jonathan Feally
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2009 03:46
> An: DBMail mailinglist
> Betreff: Re: [Dbmail] dbmail performance test
>
> It would be very nice if you were to compare the new 2.3.x from git vs. 
> 2.2.x. I suspect that the size of the database will be much less than 
> your 2.2 install and would like to see what performance difference there 
> really is. If you were to run this test, please copy all the messages 
> into a fresh database vs. converting a copy of your 2.2 database. That 
> way all messages are stored in the single-instance-storage and all 
> header caching is done in a single table.
>
> Thanks,
> -Jon
>
>
> Andreja Babic wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am using dbmail for several years. Recently I have made performance
>> test of dbmail and cyrus. I have 350 users in dbmail with total 4
>> million mails. 
>> The biggest mailbox has a bit more than 150000 mails.
>>
>> Then I created the same users for cyrus and with imapsync copied all
>> mails from dbmail to cyrus. Yes, it took few days to finish.
>>
>> This is an test environment so I had exclusive access to it.
>>
>> Dbmail version 2.2.11 compiled from source
>> Cyrus version 2.2.13-14+b3 (debian package)
>>
>> Both imaps use mysql for authentication.
>>
>> Database dbmail took 48G while cyrus mail storage had 30G for the same
>> amount of mails.
>>
>> I run simple test with expect scripts and measuring time difference
>> between establishing and closing connection to each imap.
>>
>> What I have got from tests is that search is much faster on dbmail and
>> fetch is much faster on cyrus.
>>
>> For example on the mailbox which had 39661 unread mails search on cyrus
>> imap took 20 seconds. The same operation on identical mailbox on
>> dbmail took 12.7 seconds.
>>
>> On the other side, fetching headers from all mails in inbox with "fetch
>> 1:* body[header]" took on dbmail 20 seconds while the same operation
>> on cyrus took 3 seconds.
>>
>> I want to point that originaly I had mysql parameter tmp_table_size set
>> to 30M and then search on dbmail took ages on 3000 big maibox.
>> After I increased this parameter to 500M search was flying and tests
>> mentioned above are done when tmp_table_size was set to 500M.
>>
>> I am using roundcube webmail as front end for dbmail imap server and
>> after login it takes ages to open huge mailbox. I would appreciate if
>> you know and tell me if there is any "trick" to increase speed of fetch
>> on dbmail.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Andreja
>> _______________________________________________
>> DBmail mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>   



__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature 
database 4129 (20090604) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com



-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Reply via email to