On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:11:00PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
Under the scenario, would 2.5 work better?
Mike
Hi Mike,
In our case, the unconstrained I/O caused by the mandatory mailbox
format conversion on first use would have necessitated a prolonged
service outage to prevent
On 2015-04-20 17:16, k...@rice.edu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:11:00PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
Under the scenario, would 2.5 work better?
Mike
Hi Mike,
In our case, the unconstrained I/O caused by the mandatory mailbox
format conversion on first use would have necessitated
Mike, this means that the I/O hit from upgrading will happen at the time
you XFER the mailbox. That's good because you can control the I/O by
spreading out your XFERs, if it's even a problem. I moved a lot of
mailboxes (30,000+) without really noticing a problem. I did try to
perform the
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:23:07PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
We currently have:
Cyrus Front-End servers running 2.2.12
Cyrus Back-End running 2.3.16
I have built a new back-end server running 2.4.17.
I plan on adding the new, 2.4 server, to the aggregate, and move
I would wait for 2.5.1, which should be out in a day or so. There were
some XFER bugs in 2.5.0.
The IO hit will have to be taken regardless, it's just deferred
slightly. The 2.5 backend will work with 2.2 proxies just fine, though
of course most of the new features won't be visible to your
Does an XFER automatically upgrade the mailbox to the new format? I don't
remember having performance problems when I moved users from a v2.3
backend to a new v2.4 backend (a long time ago).
Andy
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I would wait for 2.5.1, which should be out
From 2.3 to 2.4 upgraded automatically.
From x to 2.5 doesn't upgrade automatically at the moment. You have to run
reconstruct -V max on the folder afterwards.
Maybe for the XFER case we should upgrade automatically... I'll talk to Ellie
about that when she gets in today. She's the 2.5
Under the scenario, would 2.5 work better?
Mike
On 04/20/2015 04:45 PM, k...@rice.edu wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:23:07PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
We currently have:
Cyrus Front-End servers running 2.2.12
Cyrus Back-End running 2.3.16
I have built a new
We currently have:
Cyrus Front-End servers running 2.2.12
Cyrus Back-End running 2.3.16
I have built a new back-end server running 2.4.17.
I plan on adding the new, 2.4 server, to the aggregate, and move all the
mailboxes. I would rather not upgrade the front-end servers, since
(taking it back to the list in case it's useful to others)
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015, at 05:45 PM, Lalot Dominique wrote:
Hello Bron
Unfortunately I would'nt be able to go to The Hague..
Oh well :)
Just as a simple question, the only drawback of not using is that you
won't be able to share
Hi,
We used cyrus for many years and switch to a proprietary system. We are
juste looking back to cyrus.
I would like to know the status of cyrus and HA:
This documentation seems to consider that replication is edge..
http://cyrusimap.org/docs/cyrus-imapd/2.4.9/install-replication.php
and it has
Am Montag, 20. April 2015, 08:32:52 schrieb Lalot Dominique:
I would like to know the status of cyrus and HA:
This documentation seems to consider that replication is edge..
http://cyrusimap.org/docs/cyrus-imapd/2.4.9/install-replication.php
and it has been written in 2007
Cyrus is a product
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015, at 04:32 PM, Lalot Dominique wrote:
Hi,
We used cyrus for many years and switch to a proprietary system. We
are juste looking back to cyrus. I would like to know the status of
cyrus and HA: This documentation seems to consider that replication is
edge..
13 matches
Mail list logo
