Hi,
Just giving my own experience: * I am using dovecot 2.0.9 (well, now 2.0.10 since today) in production without problems * Sdbox is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch to mdbox * Mdbox is running well so far, and resources (IO or CPU) are not an issue anymore. * Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy * Converting from sdbox to mdbox has been a complete nightmare. I have never managed to make it completely, finally made it through imap protocol between 2 instance of dovecot. You better choose before sd or md, but not try to convert between the 2 my 2 cents JM On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:19:21 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote: > On 4.3.2011, at 23.05, Douglas Mortensen wrote: > >> I guess to get more specific, some of the questions I have regarding dbox vs. mdbox are: 1. What is the advantage to using multiple files? > mdbox in theory uses less disk I/O for "normal users". > >> 2. What is the advantage to using a single sdbox file for each user? > It's simpler. More difficult to get corrupted. Also if in future there exists a filesystem that supports smaller files better, it's then faster than mdbox. Probably unlikely that it will happen anytime soon. 3. > >> an of course be anything. > e="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">4. Are there real-world benchmarks showing measurable differences between maildir, sdbox, mdbox? torage, so the before/after numbers can't be compared. I'm very interested in knowing myself too. > e type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">5. Are sdbox & mdbox equally stable to Maildir? Are they recommended for production systems? sdbox is so simple that I doubt anyone will find any kind of corruption bugs. mdbox is more complex, but people are using > >> dles already corrupted files, v2.0.10 had several fixes related to that.
