So my question is this since I just moved over the new server to Dovecot
as well and I like it.. but I did only IMAP should I then use the pop3
from Dovecot or just keep using pop3 from qmail? Does Dovecot update the
roaming users..

Thanks
Remo

Ed McLain wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Rick
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

!DSPAM:4769e9a7310541476714592!

Reply via email to