I have to second, third, and fourth that.  We moved from Courier to Dovecot and 
the performance change was dramatic.  We have 5,000+ accounts on 2 clustered 
(active / active) servers utilizing GFS for the file system on a SAS SAN and 
the fact that Dovecot had built in support for clustered setups was a major 
plus.  Had a few issues off the bat with POP3 UID's but quickly fixed that one 
thanks to Dovecots easy to change UID definitions.  Don't think I'll ever 
change back.

Ed McLain

From: Rick Romero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: <vchkpw@inter7.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 15:08:54 -0600
To: <vchkpw@inter7.com>
Conversation: [vchkpw] [OT] IMAP Servers: Dovecot or Binc?
Subject: Re: [vchkpw] [OT] IMAP Servers: Dovecot or Binc?

On Wed, 2007-12-19 at 11:11 -0800, Tom Collins wrote:
> Courier-IMAP seems to be putting a heavy load on my server when
> someone accesses a mailbox with a large number of messages in it.
> What's the preferred IMAP server for a machine that will have 100-200
> connections (plan for growth...) but may have an occasional mailbox
> with 1000+ messages in it.  I've searched the archives and tried to
> google for "imap server performance" and "imap server comparison" but
> haven't come up with much after an hour.

> My impression is that Dovecot performs well, better than courier, but
> I'm wondering if anyone can offer up some real-world numbers to help
> me make my decision.

Dovecot has really come out in the past year or so.  I started with .99,
I upgraded from Courier, but honestly it wasn't really up to date.

Dovecot's indexing showed an immediate improvement on large mailboxes.
With 1.0.5, the only issue I have is with a few older Mac clients.  For
me this affects about 4 out of 450 clients total.

I don't have any numbers, but I've had at least 1500 messages in my
INBOX, not including subfolders, with great performance.  The change was
so dramatic I didn't need any numbers.



Reply via email to