On 11/6/2012 2:29 AM, Christian Rößner wrote:
Another solution would be to write some kind of milter/policy-service with a
web-interface, where people can reject mails directly on the postfix side.
But this is a lot of work.
Use a web interface that requires auth. But I'd not use a
On 10/27/2012 6:58 AM, Bernics Gábor | Penta Unió Zrt. wrote:
I use dovecot LDA (+sieve) with maildir.
conf:
http://pastebin.com/9fhYD58g
Next time simply paste dovecot -n output into your email.
Assuming Dovecot is the only program accessing the maildirs, try:
On 10/27/2012 3:00 PM, David Abrahams wrote:
I noticed that occasionally searching in my huge archive mailbox can be
really slow, so I tried doveadm index on it and it seemed to do a lot of
work, which seemed strange given, for example, that dovecot-lda says it
keeps Dovecot index files
On 10/25/2012 10:54 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
At 7PM -0500 on 25/10/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
On 10/25/2012 4:24 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
At 1PM -0500 on 25/10/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
Switch Postfix to use the Dovecot Local Deliver Agent (LDA) in place of
the Postfix local/virtual
On 10/25/2012 11:16 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
At 1AM +0300 on 26/10/12 you (Robert JR) wrote:
On 2012-10-26 00:15, Ben Morrow wrote:
As Stan said earlier, this is a Postfix question. The rule for
[Looking back at the thread it wasn't Stan, it was Dennis Guhl. Sorry
about that.]
I prodded him
You are a well of accessible knowledge Ben. (How have I missed your
posts in the past?)
On 10/26/2012 3:11 AM, Ben Morrow wrote:
Assuming you have
mailbox_command = /.../dovecot-lda -a ${RECIPIENT}
I'm setup for system users so it's a simpler, but yes.
or something equivalent in
On 10/26/2012 1:29 PM, Milan Holzäpfel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 09:01:24 -0500
Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 10/24/2012 6:28 AM, Milan Holzäpfel wrote:
I have a problem with an incosistent mdbox:
...
four hours after the problem initially appeared, I did a hard reset
On 10/26/2012 1:30 PM, Milan Holzäpfel wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2012 13:28:11 +0200
Milan Holzäpfel lis...@mjh.name wrote:
I have a problem with an incosistent mdbox:
[...]
The problem appeared out of nowhere. [...]
That's just wrong. Two minutes before the corruption occured for
the
On 10/25/2012 2:23 AM, Robert JR wrote:
On 2012-10-25 06:57, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 10/24/2012 3:04 PM, Robert JR wrote:
I have a question regarding mailbox locking and hope any one can help
me to better understanding the locking of mbox My Postfix lock option
is fcntl dotlock
On 10/25/2012 1:00 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Switch Postfix to use the Dovecot Local Deliver Agent (LDA) in place of
the Postfix local/virtual delivery agent. Using Dovecot LDA eliminates
the file locking issue. Thus it also increases throughput as lock
latency is eliminated. It also
On 10/25/2012 1:01 PM, Bradley Rintoul wrote:
the individual emails which the user
receives are actually downloaded and put into the Maildir repository
using a
Python email client (POP3 client).
Tell us more about this. This doesn't sound like 'normal' email being
fetched from an
On 10/25/2012 12:38 PM, Robert JR wrote:
On 2012-10-25 21:23, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 10/25/2012 1:00 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Switch Postfix to use the Dovecot Local Deliver Agent (LDA) in place of
the Postfix local/virtual delivery agent. Using Dovecot LDA eliminates
the file locking
On 10/25/2012 2:13 PM, Bradley Rintoul wrote:
Let's say someone has an account with Yahoo, for example. My Python code is
fetching email from the user's Yahoo! account and placing it into the
Dovecot
Maildir storage for a particular user. Now when the user retrieves their
mail,
On 10/25/2012 2:42 PM, Robert JR wrote:
Thanks again Stan, you are very helpfull, i will start learning how to
configure LDA, but hopefully i can also have an answer from Timo about
why this issue happened.. i am sure he is aware of it and can explain it..
Probably not. You describe a dot
On 10/25/2012 4:24 PM, Ben Morrow wrote:
At 1PM -0500 on 25/10/12 you (Stan Hoeppner) wrote:
Yes, actually I did, but I missed one part of it because I assumed you
had Dovecot setup properly.
It doesn't matter if the mbox locks are write or read or both. Locks
are the problem, period
On 10/25/2012 1:23 PM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I forgot to mention one very important feature of Dovecot LDA:
New messages delivered by Postfix are indexed by LDA as they are written
to the mailbox, flags updated at this time, etc. Thus when a mailbox is
opened in an IMAP MUA, new messages
On 10/24/2012 6:28 AM, Milan Holzäpfel wrote:
I have a problem with an incosistent mdbox:
...
four hours after the problem initially appeared, I did a hard reset of
the system because it was unresponsive.
...
Can anybody say something about this? May the mdbox be repaired?
If the box is
On 10/24/2012 9:45 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-10-24 10:01 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
If the box is truly unresponsive, i.e. hard locked, then the corrupted
indexes are only a symptom of the underlying problem, which is unrelated
to Dovecot, UNLESS, the lack
On 10/24/2012 3:04 PM, Robert JR wrote:
I have a question regarding mailbox locking and hope any one can help me
to better understanding the locking of mbox
My Postfix lock option is fcntl dotlock
mailbox_delivery_lock = fcntl, dotlock
virtual_mailbox_lock = fcntl, dotlock
My Dovecot
On 10/8/2012 4:37 PM, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
The proper way to accomplish your goals, or at least the big ones.
- I generally want to have _all_ mail (which is not sorted out because
of being spam) to be archived at the local server.
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_bcc
On 10/9/2012 2:57 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#always_bcc
Correction. In your case you'll need to use:
http://www.postfix.org/postconf.5.html#recipient_bcc_maps
Because you said you only want to archive email for some users, not
simply all mail received
This request for assistance is a train wreck, with cars strewn
everywhere, chaos ensuing, the carnage preventing everyone from being
able to see what's actually going on...
On 10/7/2012 2:47 PM, Marc Perkel wrote:
Here's what I'm trying to do. I have a spam filtering operation as a
front end
On 10/7/2012 7:11 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
I don't think dovecot.index file is much of a problem. With 1M mails it
usually only takes something like 8-32 MB of memory depending on what mailbox
format is used. dovecot.index.log file doesn't depend on the mailbox size at
all. The main
On 9/30/2012 8:02 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Hi Timo/everyone,
Currently we are logging the remote IP, but is there a way to show the
IP address that the NAT connection is coming from?
The reason I ask is, we are changing ISPs, and I would like to see in
the logs when an external
On 9/25/2012 12:29 AM, Spyros Tsiolis wrote:
My clients don't invest in hardware. I live in Greece. Things are really
bad right now. Not that if they were better they (the client) would invest
in their infrastructure.
...
Thank you very much Stan for you kind reply.
I reply to you in
On 9/24/2012 1:42 PM, Spyros Tsiolis wrote:
Having said that, would it be possible to take
away on 72Gb drive (say Drive1 the second drive)
and shove in one of the two 146Gb ones ?
It's always best to manually take a drive off line before pulling it.
Shouldn't the array be rebuilt ?
On 9/21/2012 4:32 AM, Tomáš Randa wrote:
Hello,
I still cannot get dovecot running with more then 1000 processes, but
hard limit is 8192 per user in box. I tried everything, including
modifying startup script of dovecot to set ulimit -u 8192.
What is your value for kern.maxusers? Did you
On 9/5/2012 6:02 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-09-05 6:23 AM, cc maco young bangkokm...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:02 AM, Stan
Hoeppners...@hardwarefreak.comwrote:
What does TB activity manager say?
Activity Manager is blank
as an update, went to Claws email client.
On 9/3/2012 11:21 PM, cc young wrote:
cannot get TB to recognize either pop3/s or imap/s server
can connect just fine with:
openssl s_client -connect ms1.myserver.net:993
. login ...
but trying with TB /var/log/mail.log gets:
dovecot: pop3-login: Aborted login (no auth attempts):
On 9/4/2012 11:37 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
Almost every message I'm getting through this list is duplicated, down
to the same exact message-ID...
Anyone else seeing this?
Nope. Make any changes to Postfix or your script recently?
--
Stan
On 8/24/2012 8:49 AM, Tim Smith wrote:
My next guess was the upstream data rate. My router states that the
upstream is 10x slower than downstream so I guess this is the culprit.
Time to move to a VPS methinks...
Ok, you stated that you have multiple user PCs that are slow when
sending. I
On 8/24/2012 5:53 AM, Tim Smith wrote:
Hay Tim,
Having set up my mail server (Dovecot/Postfix), users are experiencing
long delays (a couple of minutes) when sending mail from mail client
such as Thunderbird - this increases with attachments. Having had a
brief discussion with someone, they
On 8/14/2012 5:12 PM, Michael Durket wrote:
Is it possible to have multiple Listen directives in a dovecot configuration
file for the same protocol? I am running dovecot-1.2.11 and I want to be able
to use the standard port as well as a test port:
protocol imap {
listen = *:143
On 8/11/2012 8:02 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
1. Under normal conditions, mail2.example.com is a full mirror of
mail1.example.com; when any mail message is added/viewed/moved/removed
etc. to any user's folder or any folder is added/viewed/moved/removed
etc. at mail1.example.com, we want it to
On 8/11/2012 11:52 AM, Daniel Parthey wrote:
Nikolaos Milas wrote:
On 10/8/2012 4:47 πμ, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
That begs the question,
what is your definition of a Highly Available Mail Server? What is it
that you actually want to accomplish? In some detail please.
1. Under normal
On 8/9/2012 9:58 AM, Nikolaos Milas wrote:
Hi,
We would like to implement a Highly Available Mail Server and would like
to ask advice on how to architect this.
Some details on our setup:
Currently we have only one internal mail server (Postfix/Dovecot 2.0 -
planning to move to 2.1),
On 7/24/2012 7:13 AM, Morten Stevens wrote:
Jul 24 12:27:32 mx1 sendmail[31933]: q6OARUOM031928:
to=dovecot@dovecot.org, delay=00:00:02, xdelay=00:00:01, mailer=esmtp,
pri=152317, relay=dovecot.org. [193.210.130.67], dsn=2.0.0, stat=Sent
(Ok: queued as 35AF81AE8359)
Jul 24 12:28:32 mx1
On 7/23/2012 5:54 AM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Le lundi 23 juillet 2012, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
If you've compiled with tcpwrappers, you can do:
login_access_sockets = tcpwrap
I use debian stock version, I'll check that and recompile if need be.
Debian stable has Dovecot 1.2.15, and I don't see
On 7/23/2012 6:52 AM, e-frog wrote:
On 23.07.2012 13:23, wrote Stan Hoeppner:
On 7/23/2012 5:54 AM, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Le lundi 23 juillet 2012, Timo Sirainen a écrit :
If you've compiled with tcpwrappers, you can do:
login_access_sockets = tcpwrap
I use debian stock version, I'll check
On 7/20/2012 12:13 AM, n...@5sg.eu wrote:
Show 'dovecot -n' output
It shows it - and 'plugin: convert_mail: mbox:%h/%u/mail'
I also changed it in dovecot/conf.d/01-dovecot-postfix.conf
Show 'dovecot -n' output means exactly that. You did not. It's very
difficult to help
On 7/18/2012 4:39 PM, n...@5sg.eu wrote:
Hi again,
I'm still trying to find out if anyone knows the correct
way to either switch the existing Maildir multiple file format to
the single file format I believe known as MBox.
Failing that, though it'll mean a LOT of work for me
On 7/18/2012 5:21 PM, David Drexler wrote:
Hi,
I can't seem to get dovecot to work. When I connect with thunderbird,
tbird complains that it can't find the settings for my email. When I
connect with evolution, it seems to go through all the motions but it
doesn't pick up the waiting
On 7/13/2012 4:09 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
specifically from a filesystem IO perspective:
1. new mail delivery
not much difference.
maildir requires 3 (or is it 4?) metadata operations and a file write op
mbox requires a single file append operation.
2. searching a mailbox folder
On 7/13/2012 7:28 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
not much difference.
maildir requires 3 (or is it 4?) metadata operations and a file write op
your remarks are mostly true, except concentrates too much on uncommon
situations and uncommon strange case of probably tens of thousands of
mail
On 7/12/2012 5:32 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
i don't really understand why you want to do it, single file mailboxes
are plain inefficient.
mbox is more efficient than maildir for many common operations,
specifically from a filesystem IO perspective:
1. new mail delivery
2. searching a
On 7/10/2012 2:24 AM, Federico Bianchi wrote:
Is it possible to have mail_max_userip set to a value for localhost
(webmail) and to another value for everything else?
mail_max_userip as the name suggests is a per user IMAP socket
connection limit. So you should be able to set it to one value
On 7/9/2012 3:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't
realize you did so. Would you please clarify what I stated that is
simply not true? You comment WRT SSD doesn't prove anything
On 7/9/2012 2:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 21:29, schrieb Stan Hoeppner:
On 7/9/2012 3:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.07.2012 07:48, schrieb Wojciech Puchar:
disagreed with my statement, then agreed with it. Apparently you didn't
realize you did so. Would you please
On 7/8/2012 8:27 AM, Patrick Domack wrote:
Quoting Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks
good . . How often can a real-world disk actually deliver the 6Gbs
when only a minority of disk reads are long sequential
On 7/8/2012 5:16 PM, Matthias-Christian Ott wrote:
On 2012-07-08 23:29, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 7/8/2012 8:27 AM, Patrick Domack wrote:
Quoting Wojciech Puchar woj...@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl:
I think there are optimal situations where any configuration looks
good . . How often can a real
On 7/6/2012 2:16 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
You wouldn't partition the large LUN. You'd simply directly format it
with XFS. Laying a partition table on it would introduce the real
Fine. i understand that. What i am suggesting is not making large LUNs.
you get the best performance with
On 7/5/2012 2:44 AM, Adrian M wrote:
Hi Stan,
I know how to add drives to the storage and how to grow the existing
filesystem, but such big filesystems are somehow new to mainstream
linux. Yes, I know some university out there already have pentabytes
filesystems, but right now stable linux
On 7/5/2012 6:36 AM, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
At 16TB+ scale with maildir you should be using XFS on kernel 3.x, not
EXT4. Your performance will be significantly better, as in 30% or much
why you want to make 16TB partition at first place?
You wouldn't partition the large LUN. You'd simply
On 7/4/2012 4:09 PM, Adrian Minta wrote:
On 07/04/12 23:22, J E Lyon wrote:
On 4 Jul 2012, at 21:01, Adrian Minta wrote:
What is the best strategy to add another storage to an existing
virtual mail system ?
Move some domains to the new storage and create symlinks ?
Switch to dovecot hashing
.
--
Stan
-Original Message-
From: dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org [mailto:dovecot-boun...@dovecot.org] On
Behalf Of Stan Hoeppner
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 4:24 PM
To: dovecot@dovecot.org
Subject: Re: [Dovecot] RAID1+md concat+XFS as mailstorage
On 6/28/2012 7:15 AM, Ed W wrote
On 7/1/2012 5:48 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-07-01 3:17 AM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
In a production environment, the mirror pairs will be duplexed across
two SAS/SATA controllers.
Duplexing the mirrors makes a concat/RAID1, and a properly configured
RAID10
will yield a
different result.
One should not be surprised that something breaks when he intentionally
attempts to break it.
This is the configuration endorsed by Stan Hoeppner.
Yes. It works very well for metadata heavy workloads, i.e. maildir.
--
Stan
On 6/20/2012 10:50 AM, Romer Ventura wrote:
Has anyone used GlusterFS as storage file system for dovecot or any other
email system?
I have not, but can tell you from experience and education that
distributed filesystems don't work well with transactional workloads
such as IMAP and SMTP. The
On 5/29/2012 1:14 PM, Alan Brown wrote:
(It was hard enough getting permission to move to Maildir format. My
manager is a confirmed VMS-head who regards all Unix formats as
unreliable and the newer they are the less he trusts them.)
Your manager should have become extinct simultaneously with
On 5/20/2012 6:19 AM, Jerry wrote:
I have a friend who is preparing to set up a small Postfix/Dovecot mail
system. There are only approximately 25 users. He wants to use Berkeley
DB in a similar fashion to the way Postfix does. I told him I do not
believe Dovecot supports that. I could not
On 5/17/2012 9:45 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
The list included only .com addresses, with gmail/yahoo/etc removed. I'm sure
Tim will be happy to send you the email if you ask it from him. :)
But not all .com's. I didn't receive such an email. Which means you
sat down and spent some amount of
On 5/17/2012 3:19 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On 17.5.2012, at 22.56, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 5/17/2012 9:45 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
The list included only .com addresses, with gmail/yahoo/etc removed. I'm
sure Tim will be happy to send you the email if you ask it from him. :)
But not all
On 5/14/2012 7:18 PM, Beto Moreno wrote:
This feature I'm speaking is users from the same domain not externals domains.
Maybe is a Exchange feature I don't know because I have seen the email
client but just the client side and don't have any contact with the IT
side.
I've only seen this
On 5/12/2012 2:26 AM, Cor Bosman wrote:
The indexes are doing a lot of iops on the metrocluster, and it's a bit
of an expensive option for something it's not even that good at.
This clears things up a bit.
Im aiming for something with 2 servers, each with a 12 disk enclosure
with SSD for
On 5/12/2012 2:32 AM, Cor Bosman wrote:
Mail is always a random IO workload, unless your mailbox count is 1,
whether accessing indexes or mail files. Regarding the other two
questions, you'll likely need to take your own measurements.
Wait, maybe there is a misunderstanding. I mean the IO
On 5/11/2012 1:41 AM, Cor Bosman wrote:
Hey all, we're in the process of checking out alternatives to our index
storage. We're currently storing indexes on a NetApp Metrocluster which
works fine, but is very expensive. We're planning a few different setups and
doing some actual performance
On 4/21/2012 4:52 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 07:31:13PM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
This issue has come up twice on the Postfix list in less than a month.
Oh, thanks! I'll look into those list posts.. I had mostly given up
solving this by rate limits and decided
On 4/19/2012 4:40 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/17/2012 8:01 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
have 4000/6000 imaps concurent connections during working hours .
for approx 50K intensives users.
The only mandatory thing will be I must use HP proliant servers
The operating system will be FreeBSD
On 4/17/2012 8:01 AM, Frank Bonnet wrote:
have 4000/6000 imaps concurent connections during working hours .
POP3 users will be very few
How much disk space do you plan to offer per user mail directory? Will
you be using quotas?
I need some feedbacks advices of experienced admins
I will
On 4/14/2012 5:04 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 07:33:19AM -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
What I meant wasn't the drive throwing uncorrectable read errors but
the drives are returning different data that each think is correct or
both may have sent the correct data
On 4/14/2012 5:00 AM, Ed W wrote:
On 14/04/2012 04:48, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 4/13/2012 10:31 AM, Ed W wrote:
You mean those answers like:
you need to read 'those' articles again
Referring to some unknown and hard to find previous emails is not the
same as answering?
No, referring
On 4/13/2012 1:12 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 4/12/12, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 4/11/2012 9:23 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
I suppose the controller could throw an error if
the two drives returned data that didn't agree with each other but it
wouldn't know which
On 4/13/2012 8:12 AM, Jim Lawson wrote:
On 04/13/2012 08:33 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
What I meant wasn't the drive throwing uncorrectable read errors but
the drives are returning different data that each think is correct or
both may have sent the correct data but one of the set got corrupted
On 4/13/2012 10:31 AM, Ed W wrote:
On 13/04/2012 13:33, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
In closing, I'll simply say this: If hardware, whether a mobo-down SATA
chip, or a $100K SGI SAN RAID controller, allowed silent data corruption
or transmission to occur, there would be no storage industry
On 4/13/2012 10:31 AM, Ed W wrote:
You mean those answers like:
you need to read 'those' articles again
Referring to some unknown and hard to find previous emails is not the
same as answering?
No, referring to this:
On 4/12/2012 5:58 AM, Ed W wrote:
The claim by ZFS/BTRFS authors
On 4/11/2012 9:23 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 4/12/12, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
On 4/11/2012 11:50 AM, Ed W wrote:
One of the snags of md RAID1 vs RAID6 is the lack of checksumming in the
event of bad blocks. (I'm not sure what actually happens when md
scrubbing finds
On 4/12/2012 5:58 AM, Ed W wrote:
The claim by ZFS/BTRFS authors and others is that data silently bit
rots on it's own. The claim is therefore that you can have a raid1 pair
where neither drive reports a hardware failure, but each gives you
different data?
You need to read those articles
On 4/10/2012 1:09 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 4/10/12, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
SuperMicro H8SGL G34 mobo w/dual Intel GbE, 2GHz 8-core Opteron
32GB Kingston REG ECC DDR3, LSI 9280-4i4e, Intel 24 port SAS expander
20 x 1TB WD RE4 Enterprise 7.2K SATA2 drives
NORCO RPC
On 4/10/2012 5:22 AM, Adrian Minta wrote:
On 04/10/12 08:00, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Interestingly, I designed a COTS server back in January to handle at
least 5k concurrent IMAP users, using best of breed components. If you
or someone there has the necessary hardware skills, you could assemble
On 4/11/2012 11:50 AM, Ed W wrote:
Re XFS. Have you been watching BTRFS recently?
I will concede that despite the authors considering it production ready
I won't be using it for my servers just yet. However, it's benchmarking
on single disk benchmarks fairly similarly to XFS and in certain
On 4/9/2012 2:15 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
Unfortunately, the usual kind of customers we have here, spending that
kind of budget isn't justifiable. The only reason we're providing
email services is because customers wanted freebies and they felt
there was no reason why we can't give them
On 4/7/2012 9:43 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
On 4/7/12, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Firstly, thanks for the comprehensive reply. :)
I'll assume networked storage nodes means NFS, not FC/iSCSI SAN, in
which case you'd have said SAN.
I haven't decided
On 4/5/2012 3:02 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
Hi Emmanuel,
I'm trying to improve the setup of our Dovecot/Exim mail servers to
handle the increasingly huge accounts (everybody thinks it's like
infinitely growing storage like gmail and stores everything forever in
their email accounts) by
On 4/7/2012 3:45 PM, Robin wrote:
Putting XFS on a singe RAID1 pair, as you seem to be describing above
for the multiple thin node case, and hitting one node with parallel
writes to multiple user mail dirs, you'll get less performance than
EXT3/4 on that mirror pair--possibly less than half,
On 3/31/2012 4:28 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
There are only a limited number of such rocks available (we disposed of
most of them to our neighbors' yards years ago)
:)
--
Stan
On 3/28/2012 3:54 PM, Jeff Gustafson wrote:
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 11:07 -0500, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Locally attached/internal/JBOD storage typically offers the best
application performance per dollar spent, until you get to things like
backup scenarios, where off node network throughput
On 3/27/2012 3:57 PM, Jeff Gustafson wrote:
We do have a FC system that another department is using. The company
dropped quite a bit of cash on it for a specific purpose. Our department
does not have access it to. People are somewhat afraid of iSCSI around
here because they believe it
On 3/26/2012 2:34 PM, Jeff Gustafson wrote:
Do you have any suggestions for a distributed replicated filesystem
that works well with dovecot? I've looked into glusterfs, but the
latency is way too high for lots of small files. They claim this problem
is fixed in glusterfs 3.3. NFS too
On 3/24/2012 1:16 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
Is this redhat's version of the kernel only? Or does it apply to other
linux kernels and other distros?
Any idea what linux kernel versions might cause this?
(from main dovecot webpage news)
Thu Mar 22 14:38:53 EET 2012
Red Hat/CentOS users:
On 3/22/2012 11:17 AM, Jim Lawson wrote:
On 03/22/2012 12:11 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
On 3/21/2012 12:04 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
The problem is most likely the same as with NFS: Server A caches data -
server B modifies data - server A modifies data using stale cached state
- corruption
On 3/23/2012 6:41 AM, Radim Kolar wrote:
Can somebody provide maildrop syntax for using deliver-lda as final
delivery program during sorting mail in user mailfilter?
i mean replacement for to statement
if ( /^(To|Cc):.*dovecot@dovecot.org/:h )
{
to $MAIL/.dovecot/
}
Dovecot's local
On 3/23/2012 7:13 AM, Jim Lawson wrote:
On 3/23/12 3:13 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Speaking as an admin who has run Dovecot on top of GFS both with and
without the director, I would never go back to a cluster without the
director. The cluster performs *so* much better when glocks can
On 3/20/2012 11:26 PM, Mark Jeghers wrote:
Hi Stan
Afraid it did not help. Here is what I got:
*** entered into a telnet session...
user ann
+OK
pass
-ERR [IN-USE] Couldn't open INBOX: Internal error occurred. Refer to server
log for more information. [2012-03-20 21:16:05]
On 3/21/2012 12:04 PM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
The problem is most likely the same as with NFS: Server A caches data -
server B modifies data - server A modifies data using stale cached state -
corruption. Glusterfs works with FUSE, and FUSE has quite similar problems as
NFS.
With director
On 3/20/2012 1:29 PM, Mark Jeghers wrote:
All,
Below is my config. When I run dovecot from xinetd, I get these errors in
the log:
Mar 20 11:13:39 t4pserver2 dovecot: pop3-login: Login: user=mark,
method=PLAIN, rip=::1, lip=::1, mpid=11624, secured
Mar 20 11:13:39 t4pserver2 dovecot:
On 3/17/2012 4:24 PM, Kaya Saman wrote:
Long story but we don't have any control over our mail server which is
handled by the parent company abroad and is on MS Exchange.
To use an IMAP storage solution is the only way to get rid of pesky MS
.pst files which have been causing everyone grief
On 3/15/2012 5:51 AM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 2012-03-01 8:38 PM, Stan Hoeppner s...@hardwarefreak.com wrote:
Get yourself a qualified network architect. Pay for a full network
traffic analysis. He'll attach sniffers at multiple points in your
network to gather traffic/error/etc data
On 3/6/2012 3:01 PM, Steve Campbell wrote:
I've experienced that type of locked mailbox before on the old server.
Users insist on accessing their email account as a pop account on their
desktop with the check for new mail every so many minutes turned on
and still keep their smartphones on
On 3/6/2012 5:07 PM, Stephen Davies wrote:
Google tells me that these should go away but they don't.
Seems to happen continuously while a user is viewing email.
Is this thread what Google tells you?
http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2010-October/053909.html
Timo is the creator of Dovecot, if
On 3/6/2012 8:28 AM, Steve Campbell wrote:
http://wiki.dovecot.org/SharedMailboxes
That's where most of my questions originated, but thanks for the reply.
Steve, all the information you need is behind that link.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding concepts here
Very possibly.
What I've done in
101 - 200 of 634 matches
Mail list logo
