If I do the same test[1] with mbox I can store around 31k messages and mdbox 16k messages. I noticed also that cpu and disk utilization with mdbox was not very high, while disk utilization on mbox was much higher. That makes me wonder if I can tune mdbox to have better performance? [1] imaptest - append=100,0 logout=0 host=svr port=143 user=test pass=xxx seed=100 secs=240 clients=1 mbox=64kb.mbox box=inbox/test [2] mail_location = mbox:~/mail:INBOX=/var/spool/mail/%u:CONTROL=~/mail/control:INDEX=/var/d ovecot/%u/index:LAYOUT=maildir++ mail_location = mdbox:~/mdbox:INDEX=/home/popindex/%u/index - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. F1 Outsourcing Development Sp. z o.o. Poland t: +48 (0)124466845 f: +48 (0)124466843 e: marc at f1-outsourcing.eu
On 26 Nov 2019, at 04:15, Marc Roos <M.Roos at f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote:> If I do the same test[1] with mbox I can store around 31k messages and > mdbox 16k messages. I noticed also that cpu and disk utilization with > mdbox was not very high, while disk utilization on mbox was much higher. > That makes me wonder if I can tune mdbox to have better performance?No one should use box for anything. It was designed for mail stores of a few megabytes. *Every* other choice is better. -- My little brother got his arm stuck in the microwave. So my mom had to take him to the hospital. My grandma dropped acid this morning, and she freaked out. She hijacked a busload of penguins. So it's sort of a family crisis. Bye!