pod wrote:
Richard Hobbs richard.ho...@crl.toshiba.co.uk writes:
19. Once everything is working perfectly, send an email to the entire
company instructing them what to do after the outage and arrange an
outage and do the following steps as soon as the outage begins:
a. Unplug DMZ
Hello again, people,
I have been reading all of the emails sent back and forth recently, and
reading many web pages, and I have a new draft of my migration plan. If
anyone has the time and generosity to read through this latest plan for
me and let me know if you spot any potential problems with
Richard Hobbs richard.ho...@crl.toshiba.co.uk writes:
19. Once everything is working perfectly, send an email to the entire
company instructing them what to do after the outage and arrange an
outage and do the following steps as soon as the outage begins:
a. Unplug DMZ switch from
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Phillip Macey wrote:
Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder
are a wimp. Problems start if the user:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment -
all I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Phillip Macey wrote:
On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount of coaxing will
convince them to split
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Phillip Macey wrote:
On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount of coaxing will
On F 15 May, 2009, at 09:39 , Seth Mattinen wrote:
This raises an interesting question for me actually... given that
we've
now decided dovecot and maildir is the way forward for us, which
delivery method should we use in exim? exim can support maildir,
(right?) and so can dovecot, so should
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
well, using an LDA makes a little more cumbersome to check the local
recipient at RCPT time.
Huh? exim won't try local deliver unless it has decided it is a local
recipient. You won't get overquota
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Curtis Maloney wrote:
Phillip Macey wrote:
Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder
are a wimp. Problems start if the user:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment -
all I can put it down to is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 11:28:42AM +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
[...]
Only dovecot 'deliver' will update the index on delivery.
Do does this mean that it's slightly slower to actually deliver the mail
with dovecot (because it's writing two
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Seth Mattinen wrote:
Phillip Macey wrote:
On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no
Seth Mattinen, 2009-05-15 09:39:
(right?) and so can dovecot, so should i use dovecot's deliver
mechanism, or exim's own internal mechanism?
Only dovecot 'deliver' will update the index on delivery.
That's obvious. But dovecot (AFAIK) updates (not rebuilds) indexes when
it sees new
On F 15 May, 2009, at 12:30 , Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Fri, 15 May 2009, Giuliano Gavazzi wrote:
well, using an LDA makes a little more cumbersome to check the
local recipient at RCPT time.
Huh? exim won't try local deliver unless it has decided it is a
local recipient. You won't get
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
difference for you. A single server with recent hardware should be able
to easily handle hundreds of simultaneous users.
That's also good to know... i like to do a job right instead of relying
on faster
Richard Hobbs wrote:
That's also good to know... i like to do a job right instead of relying
on faster hardware, as i'm sure you all do too, but it's good to know
that if i make one or two non-optimal choices along the way, it'll
probably be lightning fast anyway!
The main complaint we
On 5/14/2009, Steffen Kaiser (skdove...@smail.inf.fh-brs.de) wrote:
b) try to move all their 20'000+ messages at once to an archive
folder once a year, when their quota limit is exceeded. This can make
the whole server irresponsible slow, because I have the mail_log
plugin running as well.
I'd point out that the big *practical* issue with mbox is the reality of
big inboxes. While you can restrict the hoi polloi to something limited
like a quota of under 60MB (and remember that inbox is one big honking
file), the powers that be will not allow themselves to be so
limited...nor
Phillip Macey wrote:
Oh, we serve Maildir via Dovecot IMAP and 5000 messages per folder are
a wimp. Problems start if the user:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment - all
I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls -ld
Maildir/cur` might
Phillip Macey wrote:
On 14/05/2009 5:11 PM, Steffen Kaiser wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Richard Hobbs wrote:
The main complaint we have from users is that their IMAP Inbox, with
5000 emails in it takes ages to appear, and no amount of coaxing will
convince them to split their inbox into
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 09:35 +1000, Phillip Macey wrote:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment - all
I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls -ld
Maildir/cur` might show a directory 20Mb in size for some of our users
(20-30k emails).
On 15/05/2009 9:49 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 09:35 +1000, Phillip Macey wrote:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment - all
I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg. `ls -ld
Maildir/cur` might show a directory 20Mb in size
On May 14, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Phillip Macey wrote:
On 15/05/2009 9:49 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 09:35 +1000, Phillip Macey wrote:
We are having some performancec issues on our server at the moment
- all I can put it down to is the large size of some maildirs. Eg.
`ls
On 15/05/2009 10:33 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
On May 14, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Phillip Macey wrote:
On 15/05/2009 9:49 AM, Timo Sirainen wrote:
Do you have POP3 users? What clients do your users typically use?
50% pop. 50% imap.. Roughly.
With POP3 users those kinds of I/O bursts can happen
Hi All,
Replies to everyone below (to keep the number of emails down)...
Ed W wrote:
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware
to another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize
things.
Can I recommend you add
On May 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Depends on the usage, but it's significantly better performing than
UW-IMAP. Dovecot+mbox is also significantly faster than UW-IMAP+mbox.
OK... so Dovecot is certainly significantly faster that uw-imapd in
both
cases, but is dovecot fastest
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Depends on the usage, but it's significantly better performing than
UW-IMAP. Dovecot+mbox is also significantly faster than UW-IMAP+mbox.
OK... so Dovecot is certainly significantly faster that uw-imapd in both
cases,
on 5-13-2009 8:55 AM Richard Hobbs spake the following:
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On May 13, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Depends on the usage, but it's significantly better performing than
UW-IMAP. Dovecot+mbox is also significantly faster than UW-IMAP+mbox.
OK... so Dovecot is
On Wed, 2009-05-13 at 09:56 -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
mbox - slow to delete mails - indexing will help this problem, but the
filesystem will still have work to do in order to join the two halves of
the file.
Actually, I think a new file is written with everything re-written except the
Hello,
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:05 +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
As a result, we would like to replace uw-imapd and qpopper
Sorry people - i'm replying to my own email again... my reply is below!
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hello,
Timo Sirainen wrote:
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:05 +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
another and we would like to take
I don't know whether this would help with the migration, but I routinely
solve a similar problem. I have implemented mail failover between two
servers -- which are configured with identical sets of mailboxes -- and
every 10 minutes or so, a script grabs any E-Mails from the other server
and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 10:09:06AM +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hello,
[...]
That'd good to know. Do you happen to know where I can get a copy of
this external script you speak of? Will it simply be included in the
debian package (probably)?
|
Blast, forgot something: the Simple.pm referenced in the script is
this thing:
http://search.cpan.org/~jpaf/Net-IMAP-Simple-0.93/Simple.pm
Download it, compile it, put it somewhere that the script can find it.
I don't know whether this would help with the migration, but I
routinely solve a
On May 12, 2009, at 6:41 AM, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Single-dbox is the highest performing, but note that it's not as
much
tested as mbox and Maildir code. I think it should work ok, but
I'm not
aware of any larger installations using dbox currently. So in case
you
find a problem, you might
Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
Can I recommend you add virtualisation to your todo list. I use
linux-vserver, but there are plenty other ideas out
Richard Hobbs wrote:
My colleague has mentioned something of interest... can dovecot keep the
index files in RAM? If so, the performance will obviously be *so* much
better than running them off the hard disks.
My understanding was that in-memory indicies are discarded on logout.
They're of
Hello,
Apologies for replying to my own email so soon, but I've had other
thoughts as well...
Our server is going to have 4 hard disks. These can be configured into 2
RAID 1 (mirror) arrays, a single RAID 5 array, or a single RAID 0+1 array.
Previously, we thought that two RAID 1 arrays would
On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 15:05 +, Richard Hobbs wrote:
Hi All,
We are soon to migrate our mail server from one piece of hardware to
another and we would like to take this opportunity to optimize things.
As a result, we would like to replace uw-imapd and qpopper with
dovecot. The version we
38 matches
Mail list logo
