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...
yup. > 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 reiserfs. Some examples of non-ancient filesystems: reiserfs UFS with DIR_HASH xfs -Jeremy -- 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
Description: PGP signature