Hi, I wonder if it's normal behaviour that indexes created in memory have long creation time. Other problem is that indexes created on nfs sometimes get crushed and I need to delete indexes in case of fetching mails ( I see mails on hd but when telnet on host and make stat I don't see any). Does version 1.1.x correct this errors ? And what is better to use : nfs or memory indexing ? Can someone point me adventages and disadventages of using both solutions? Best regards, Sebastian
On Aug 4, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Sebastian Tymk?w wrote:> Hi, > > I wonder if it's normal behaviour that indexes created in memory > have long > creation time.No, but the problem has more to do with caching. If you use a client that fetches the same data often (such as message headers/sizes) then Dovecot will do the same work for each request. In that case in-memory indexes perform poorly. This is more of a problem with webmail clients and less of a problem with Outlook/Thunderbird. If you're using POP3 that also performs poorly without indexes with v1.0. v1.1 makes it better.> Other problem is that indexes created on nfs sometimes get crushed > and I > need to delete indexes in case of > fetching mails ( I see mails on hd but when telnet on host and make > stat I > don't see any).So Dovecot says there are no mails while there are in fact?> Does version 1.1.x correct this errors ?v1.1 makes NFS work a lot better, so it's highly recommended.> And what is better to use : nfs or > memory indexing ? > Can someone point me adventages and disadventages of using both > solutions?Have you read http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS ? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 194 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20080804/2a2b152d/attachment-0002.bin>
Hi, Thanks for reply. 2008/8/4 Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi>> On Aug 4, 2008, at 9:42 AM, Sebastian Tymk?w wrote: > > Hi, >> >> I wonder if it's normal behaviour that indexes created in memory have long >> creation time. >> > > No, but the problem has more to do with caching. If you use a client that > fetches the same data often (such as message headers/sizes) then Dovecot > will do the same work for each request. In that case in-memory indexes > perform poorly. This is more of a problem with webmail clients and less of a > problem with Outlook/Thunderbird.And what about if I want use both solutions , memory indexing for POP3 and hd-indexing for webmail? Are there any disadventages ?> > If you're using POP3 that also performs poorly without indexes with v1.0. > v1.1 makes it better. > > Other problem is that indexes created on nfs sometimes get crushed and I >> need to delete indexes in case of >> fetching mails ( I see mails on hd but when telnet on host and make stat I >> don't see any). >> > > So Dovecot says there are no mails while there are in fact?Yes. But when I delete indexes and they are recreated everything works fine. Is it possible that something goes wrong on NFS connection ?> Does version 1.1.x correct this errors ? >> > > v1.1 makes NFS work a lot better, so it's highly recommended.Does it stable version ? Can I use it on production without any problems ?> > And what is better to use : nfs or >> memory indexing ? >> Can someone point me adventages and disadventages of using both solutions? >> > > Have you read http://wiki.dovecot.org/NFS ?Yes. Best regards, Sebastian