Nikola Milutinovic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We use OpenGroupware - http://www.opengroupware.org
Server is entirely Open Source; Outlook plugin (MAPI provider) is
commercial.
Works very well with Cyrus; which is its intended IMAP server.
Speaking of calendars,... What about
I was interested to see someone suggesting putting proc into tmpfs.
That's slightly painful if /var/imap is in ZFS: the order in which
mounts take place means you can't just put /var/imap/proc tmpfs into /
etc/vfstab if /var/imap is coming in through ZFS. A glance at the
source code says
On 15 Nov 07, at 1045, Simon Matter wrote:
I was interested to see someone suggesting putting proc into tmpfs.
That's slightly painful if /var/imap is in ZFS: the order in which
mounts take place means you can't just put /var/imap/proc tmpfs
into /
etc/vfstab if /var/imap is coming in
--On 14 November 2007 13:26:22 +0200 Joon Radley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In IMAP this gets a bit blurred as the INBOX is also
the mechanism for receiving new mail.
No, an INBOX is simply a mailbox. It's a place that you can deliver email
to, and read email from. With the right delivery
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007, Ian G Batten wrote:
; I was interested to see someone suggesting putting proc into tmpfs.
; That's slightly painful if /var/imap is in ZFS: the order in which
; mounts take place means you can't just put /var/imap/proc tmpfs into /
; etc/vfstab if /var/imap is coming in
I was interested to see someone suggesting putting proc into tmpfs.
That's slightly painful if /var/imap is in ZFS: the order in which
mounts take place means you can't just put /var/imap/proc tmpfs into /
etc/vfstab if /var/imap is coming in through ZFS. A glance at the
source code says
Hi Ian,
In IMAP this gets a bit blurred as the INBOX is also
the mechanism for receiving new mail.
No, an INBOX is simply a mailbox. It's a place that you can deliver email
to, and read email from. With the right delivery agent, it's possible to
deliver email to any mailbox, so there's
I didn't test but doesn't a symlink work?
Yes, it does (just tried it on a development system).
Definitely, we use it on all our machines.
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 23 Oct 26 10:50 proc -
/tmpfs/imapproc-slot101
Rob
Cyrus Home Page: http://cyrusimap.web.cmu.edu/
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ:
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
Thanks. I will try this patch as soon as I can, but it's clearly not the
only issue, because the same thing happens with POP processes. Here's an
example for one:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0096441e in __read_nocancel () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
#1 0x00ac02f7 in
--On 15. November 2007 06:55:44 -0500 Ken Murchison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
OK. What version of OpenSSL?
cyradm says:
Built w/OpenSSL 0.9.7a Feb 19 2003
Running w/OpenSSL 0.9.7a Feb 19 2003
rpm says:
openssl-0.9.7a-33.23
This is RHEL 3.
Are they imaps/pop3s
--On 14. November 2007 16:39:44 -0500 Ken Murchison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
It looks to me like we are timing out the client while the client is
IDLEing, but we get a signal from idled in the middle of shutdown(). Try
this patch.
--- imapd.c.~1.535.~2007-11-14 16:16:21.0 -0500
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
No. Since this potentially affects all IMAP and POP processes I would
have to do it for all entries. Do you recommend that I try that?
Since it looks like things are hanging when a process is being used, I'd
like to see if the problem goes away if we don't reuse the
Hi Ian,
What I don't understand is that you seem to think that there's a
possibility that email could be stored in some place that it can't be
transported to. Where would that be?
Please read the mails before this one. This discussion is about what Outlook
needs in order to process special
--On 15 November 2007 14:05:43 +0200 Joon Radley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Ian,
In IMAP this gets a bit blurred as the INBOX is also
the mechanism for receiving new mail.
No, an INBOX is simply a mailbox. It's a place that you can deliver email
to, and read email from. With the right
--On 15. November 2007 08:21:48 -0500 Ken Murchison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
No. Since this potentially affects all IMAP and POP processes I would
have to do it for all entries. Do you recommend that I try that?
Since it looks like things are hanging when a process is being used, I'd
like to
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 15:50 +0200, Joon Radley wrote:
Hi Ian,
What I don't understand is that you seem to think that there's a
possibility that email could be stored in some place that it can't be
transported to. Where would that be?
Please read the mails before this one. This
--On 15. November 2007 08:32:18 -0500 Ken Murchison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Since it looks like things are hanging when a process is being used, I'd
like to see if the problem goes away if we don't reuse the processes.
I'm just trying to do a bsearch() on the problem.
OK. I've made the
Michael Bacon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have heard tell of funny behavior that ZFS does if you've got
battery-backed write caches on your arrays.
/etc/system:
set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1
is your friend. Without that, ZFS' performance on hardware arrays with
large RAM caches is abysmal.
Interesting thought. We haven't gone to ZFS yet, although I like the idea
a lot. My hunch is it's an enormous win for the mailbox partitions, but
perhaps it's not a good thing for the meta partition. I'll have to let
someone else who knows more about ZFS and write speeds vs. read speeds
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
--On 15. November 2007 08:21:48 -0500 Ken Murchison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No. Since this potentially affects all IMAP and POP processes I would
have to do it for all entries. Do you recommend that I try that?
Since it looks like things are hanging when a
--On 15 November 2007 15:55:32 +0100 Olaf Fraczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 15:50 +0200, Joon Radley wrote:
Hi Ian,
What I don't understand is that you seem to think that there's a
possibility that email could be stored in some place that it can't be
transported
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
--On 15. November 2007 08:32:18 -0500 Ken Murchison
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since it looks like things are hanging when a process is being used,
I'd
like to see if the problem goes away if we don't reuse the processes.
I'm just trying to do a bsearch() on the
On Nov 15, 2007 3:55 PM, Olaf Fraczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 15:50 +0200, Joon Radley wrote:
Hi Ian,
What I don't understand is that you seem to think that there's a
possibility that email could be stored in some place that it can't be
transported to. Where
--On 15. November 2007 11:00:39 -0500 Ken Murchison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
(gdb) bt
# 0 0x0079f41e in __read_nocancel () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
# 1 0x00d0b2f7 in BIO_new_socket () from /lib/libcrypto.so.4
# 2 0x00d092b2 in BIO_read () from /lib/libcrypto.so.4
# 3 0x005dae13 in
/etc/system:
set zfs:zfs_nocacheflush=1
Yep already doing that, under Solaris 10u4. Have dual array controllers in
active-active mode. Write-back cache is enabled. Just poking in the 3510FC
menu shows cache is ~50% utilized so it does appear to be doing some work.
Cyrus Home Page:
On Nov 15, 2007 4:54 PM, Sebastian Hagedorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--On 15. November 2007 08:32:18 -0500 Ken Murchison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Since it looks like things are hanging when a process is being used, I'd
like to see if the problem goes away if we don't reuse the processes.
--On 15. November 2007 18:14:05 +0100 Alain Spineux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
# strace -p 25038
Process 25038 attached - interrupt to quit
read(0, unfinished ...
Do you know what is 0, if it was a socket it should timeout, isn't it ?
It should, I guess, but it doesn't.
# ls -l
On 14 Nov 2007, at 23:15, Vincent Fox wrote:
We have all Cyrus lumped in one ZFS pool, with separate filesystems
for
imap, mail, sieve, etc. However, I do have an unused disk in each
array
such that I could setup a simple ZFS mirror pair for /var/cyrus/
imap so
that the databases are
--On 15. November 2007 18:14:05 +0100 Alain Spineux [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
# strace -p 25038
Process 25038 attached - interrupt to quit
read(0, unfinished ...
Do you know what is 0, if it was a socket it should timeout, isn't it ?
It should, I guess, but it doesn't.
# ls -l
I've been running this in production:
mkdir /var/imap-proc
chown cyrusd /var/imap-proc
ln -s /var/imap-proc /var/cyrus/imap/proc
Setup vfstab entry for /var/imap-proc as TMPFS , and
that's about all there is to it. But yeah it would be an
improvement to see it configurable.
Ian G Batten
Hi Olaf,
Thats an interesting information. I have always thought that in
Exchange-Outlook world the processing was on the server side and the
messages were sitting on the server.
Or the client side processing is limited to Toltec/Bynari solution?
With Exchange-Outlook the Outlook message
Platform: Intel Pentium II,
debian etch,
cyrus21-imapd 2.1.18-5.1
When starting up cyrus with
/etc/init.d/cyrus21 start
the only cyrus process running is
/usr/sbin/ctl_cyrusdb -r
and it's running using ~99% CPU, but with little memory and disk use
What's printed in
Hi Ian,
Cyrus Mailstore does handle final delivery, but there's plenty of
opportunity to handle messages before that point. For example, we now
use Exim and Cyrus Mailstore, and we have plenty of processing going on in
Exim before hand off to Cyrus (with LMTP) including spamassassin, clamav
About 30% of all I/O is to mailboxes.db, most of which is read. I
haven't personally deployed a split-meta configuration, but I
understand the meta files are similarly heavy I/O concentrators.
That sounds odd.
Given the size and hotness of mailboxes.db, and in most cases the size of
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 01:29:54PM -0500, Wesley Craig wrote:
On 14 Nov 2007, at 23:15, Vincent Fox wrote:
We have all Cyrus lumped in one ZFS pool, with separate filesystems
for
imap, mail, sieve, etc. However, I do have an unused disk in each
array
such that I could setup a
35 matches
Mail list logo
