On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 09:48:57 +0200 (MEST) Eivind Kvedalen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hmm.. what kind of file system do you store your mail on? Binc shouldn't > use that much memory, so I suspect that there may be a memory leak > somewhere in binc. > > I store my mail on an ext3 file system... > And the move was from a directory to another directory on the same > partition, so the problem can hardly come from somewhere else than > bincIMAP... > > I think the problem may be the file system itself, but we should not jump > to any conclusion yet. My experience with ext2 (and afaik ext3 is no > different regarding large directories), is that the file system does not > handle directories containing thousands of files very well. This hurts > performance especially with mailboxes in Maildir-format. For instance, > reiserfs handles this case very well (you can have millions of files in > one single directory, without significant performance loss). > > Now, in any case, I don't think we should blame the file system before we > have investigated binc further. For instance, have you tried other > IMAP server implementations? > > Another thing is memory. Because binc used all of your swap space, I guess > a significant time was spent just to swap binc out to disk. Again, this > may indicate that the time is spent elsewhere than in the actual file > operations required to move each mail to another folder (and thus not a > file system problem). > > I'll look into this when I have time (next week I hope). I tried to create a new user with is home directory to an REISERFS partition; the transfer to new/ is faster, the move to current/ to, but the next step (I am not sure what bincIMAP is doing) is swap intensive and take a long time ( `ls | grep for time | wc -l` told me that about 15-20 files were accessed by minute) So what is it doing after moving the files to cur/ ?? -- Simon Comeau Martel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
