On Tuesday 02 November 2004 11:21 am, Bill Wichers wrote:
> I recently have been moving user domains from an old qmail+vpopmail server
> to a new one due in large part to hugely increased spam filter load
> (grumble). Anyway, I found one user with some 5+ GB of presumably all spam
> in their postmaster account (which was a catch all). The new box defaults
> to "set no catch-all" for exactly this kind of reason...


> Here's the problem though: I saw a very significant drop in server load
> when I deleted the hundreds of thousands of messages in that one user
> account.

in fact, you'd probably see a huge decrease in load simply by removing the 
catchall.  One of our customers had, I estimated (simply by how long it took 
to remove the directory) over 15 million emails in their catchall account.  I 
disabled the catchall and their 200k message queue cleaned out in less than 
10 minutes.

> The server was apparently spending a lot of time dealing with 
> deliveries to this one very full mailbox. This concerns me a bit since
> we're running IMAP now and I could see mailboxes with thousands of
> legitimate messages building up over time, and would not want to bog the
> system down if I have users that never delete messages.
> Does anyone know of a way to alleviate this problem without forcing
> quotas?

use a non-ancient filesystem that doesn't slow down with more than a few 
thousand files in a directory.  I have 22000 emails in one imap folder on my 
server (and tens of thousands on other folders) and have zero slowdown with 

Some examples of non-ancient filesystems:


Jeremy Kitchen ++ Systems Administrator ++ Inter7 Internet Technologies, Inc.
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] ++ www.inter7.com ++ 866.528.3530 ++ 815.776.9465 int'l
        kitchen @ #qmail #gentoo on EFnet ++ scriptkitchen.com/qmail
           GnuPG Key ID: 481BF7E2 ++ scriptkitchen.com/kitchen.asc

Attachment: pgpPjUD5QSCvU.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to