A friend of mine passed me this[1] cause I'm recommending him Dovecot. My personal experience is very different to the one in that benchmark. I will appreciate similar links from those of you who had benchmarked Dovecot against other IMAP servers. I'm conscious that my personal experience is far to be a objetive comparison. I switched from UW-Imap/Mbox to Dovecot/Maildir a box with 45k local users, 3.5MB/s sustained IMAP/POP traffic in work hours. The main performance gain is from mbox -> maildir switching. Anyway the users (and myself) "perceive" a good performance with the new setup. Regards, maykel [1] http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/mbox-benchmark.html
Maykel Moya wrote:> A friend of mine passed me this[1] cause I'm recommending him Dovecot.[snip]> [1] http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/mbox-benchmark.htmlMy first questions about this test are what version of dovecot was used, did they take into account the fact that dovecot has to build indexes? A 10s ramp-up time seems rather short for that. What kind of auth backend was used for each product and did they even attempt any kind of performance tuning on anything other than their product? This "whitepaper" comes across as extremely biased and very short on important information. Jonathan
On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 12:59 -0500, Maykel Moya wrote:> [1] http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/mbox-benchmark.htmlThis test was done 2-3 years ago with Dovecot 0.99.x version. It doesn't tell anything about Dovecot's current state. I've thought about doing the test a few times myself, but MStone is a pretty horrible thing to set up. My current tests show that Dovecot is somewhere around half as fast as Cyrus to twice as fast. It all depends on what the benchmark does. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070317/389a0ebb/attachment.bin>
Quoting Maykel Moya <moya at infomed.sld.cu>:> comparison. I switched from UW-Imap/Mbox to Dovecot/Maildir a box with > 45k local users, 3.5MB/s sustained IMAP/POP traffic in work hours. The > main performance gain is from mbox -> maildir switching. Anyway theDon't be so sure it was from the mbox -> maildir switching. I went from UW-Imap mbox to Dovecot mbox, and the speed up was enormous.> users (and myself) "perceive" a good performance with the new setup.Yes, all my users perceive it as lightening fast, as do I. How much of a difference depends to some extent on how large your mbox file is...> Regards, > maykel-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns!
Hello! Switching from UW-IMAP/mbox to dovecot/mbox has even a large performance gain (I would say around 10-100, on large folders because of the index files.). Also deleting is much faster. I haven't benchmarked it but it is definitly much, much faster. (That was the reason I left UW-IMAP). Ciao, Gerhard -- http://www.wiesinger.com/ On Sat, 17 Mar 2007, Maykel Moya wrote:> A friend of mine passed me this[1] cause I'm recommending him Dovecot. > > My personal experience is very different to the one in that benchmark. I > will appreciate similar links from those of you who had benchmarked > Dovecot against other IMAP servers. > > I'm conscious that my personal experience is far to be a objetive > comparison. I switched from UW-Imap/Mbox to Dovecot/Maildir a box with > 45k local users, 3.5MB/s sustained IMAP/POP traffic in work hours. The > main performance gain is from mbox -> maildir switching. Anyway the > users (and myself) "perceive" a good performance with the new setup. > > Regards, > maykel > > [1] http://www.isode.com/whitepapers/mbox-benchmark.html > > >