dovecot - Sep 2009 - Upgrading Dovecot on CentOS 4 from 0.99 to 1.x

(sorry for my previous message, I sent it by mistake before finishing it)

Hello,

We  have a production mail server running dovecot 0.99 (dovecot-0.99.14-1.rf). 
We are getting several errors corrected in dovecot 1.x versions: 

* corrupted inboxes (garbage at beggining of mbox files), 

* corrupted index files (Error: Corrupted file 
index /home/jsmith/.imap/Drafts/.imap.index: Sequence 6 not found from binary 
tree (6 msgs says header)), 

* others (Error: fcntl() failed with mbox file /var/mail/jsmith: Resource 
deadlock avoided), etc.

I'm planning to upgrade using the instructions found at dovecot's wiki.
On
http://atrpms.net/dist/el4/ it is offered in 3 different versions:

* dovecot 1..0.15-1_73.el4  
* dovecot 1.1.19-1_96.el4
* dovecot 1.2.5-0_100.el4

I have a separated test system, where I'll test upgrading from 0.99 to final
selected version, to discover any possible gotchas found while upgrading.

Two questions:

1. Which version is the recommended to upgrade? I'd like stability and as 
little problems as possible over anything else, as we have a simple set up.

2. What is the preferred upgrade method? straight upgrade? (099 -> rpm -Fvh 
dovecot-1.2 ? Or upgrading one release at a time? (0.99 > 1.0 > 1.1 ...)


Thank you in advance for any recommendation.


Regards,
Josep
-- 
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve



This transmission is intended for the use of the entity or individual to which
or whom it is addressed.  The transmission or any documents accompanying the
transmission may contain confidential information.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or action taken in reliance on the contents of the transmission or the
documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential
transmission in error, please destroy it and any accompanying documents and
notify the sender immediately.  Thank you.

On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:11 -0400, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
wrote:
> I'm planning to upgrade using the instructions found at dovecot's
wiki. On
> http://atrpms.net/dist/el4/ it is offered in 3 different versions:
> 
> * dovecot 1..0.15-1_73.el4  
> * dovecot 1.1.19-1_96.el4
> * dovecot 1.2.5-0_100.el4
> 
> I have a separated test system, where I'll test upgrading from 0.99 to
final
> selected version, to discover any possible gotchas found while upgrading.
> 
> Two questions:
> 
> 1. Which version is the recommended to upgrade? I'd like stability and
as
> little problems as possible over anything else, as we have a simple set up.
1.1.19 is the guaranteed-working version. I think v1.2.5 is fine too if
you don't use quota (due to a stupid bug that causes it to crash).
> 2. What is the preferred upgrade method? straight upgrade? (099 -> rpm
-Fvh
> dovecot-1.2 ? Or upgrading one release at a time? (0.99 > 1.0 > 1.1
...)
Since you're using mbox, I think 0.99 -> 1.1 or 1.2 is fine.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL:
<http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20090928/708b9c00/attachment-0002.bin>

Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:11 -0400, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
>> I'm planning to upgrade using the instructions found at
dovecot's wiki. On
>> http://atrpms.net/dist/el4/ it is offered in 3 different versions:
>>
>> * dovecot 1..0.15-1_73.el4  
>> * dovecot 1.1.19-1_96.el4
>> * dovecot 1.2.5-0_100.el4
>>
>> I have a separated test system, where I'll test upgrading from 0.99
to final
>> selected version, to discover any possible gotchas found while
upgrading.
>>
>> Two questions:
>>
>> 1. Which version is the recommended to upgrade? I'd like stability
and as
>> little problems as possible over anything else, as we have a simple set
up.
> 
> 1.1.19 is the guaranteed-working version. I think v1.2.5 is fine too if
> you don't use quota (due to a stupid bug that causes it to crash).
> 
>> 2. What is the preferred upgrade method? straight upgrade? (099 ->
rpm -Fvh
>> dovecot-1.2 ? Or upgrading one release at a time? (0.99 > 1.0 >
1.1 ...)
> 
> Since you're using mbox, I think 0.99 -> 1.1 or 1.2 is fine.
Would 1.0.10 -> 1.2 be ok with maildir?

-- 
-Eric 'shubes'

Hi Timo,

Thank you for answering.

On Monday 28 September 2009 02:22:06 pm Timo Sirainen
wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:11 -0400, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
> > I'm planning to upgrade using the instructions found at
dovecot's wiki.
> > On http://atrpms.net/dist/el4/ it is offered in 3 different versions:
> >
> > * dovecot 1..0.15-1_73.el4
> > * dovecot 1.1.19-1_96.el4
> > * dovecot 1.2.5-0_100.el4
> >
> > I have a separated test system, where I'll test upgrading from
0.99 to
> > final selected version, to discover any possible gotchas found while
> > upgrading.
> >
> > Two questions:
> >
> > 1. Which version is the recommended to upgrade? I'd like stability
and as
> > little problems as possible over anything else, as we have a simple
set
> > up.
>
> 1.1.19 is the guaranteed-working version. I think v1.2.5 is fine too if
> you don't use quota (due to a stupid bug that causes it to crash).
Good to know. I'll go 1.1.19 route, then.
> > 2. What is the preferred upgrade method? straight upgrade? (099 ->
rpm
> > -Fvh dovecot-1.2 ? Or upgrading one release at a time? (0.99 > 1.0
> 1.1
> > ...)
> Since you're using mbox, I think 0.99 -> 1.1 or 1.2 is fine.
Nice. Thanks.

And yet another question on the upgrade subject. 

While going through the list archive, I've seen that there can be some 
potential messy situations if message IDs (IMAP UIDs) change.

Will the upgrade from 0.99 to 1.1.19 change IMAP UIDs? Will this force me to 
remove the .imap folder from each user home directory? 

If this is going to happen, I'd like to know in advance, in order to send an
informative email out, as my power users (read: VPs) will have their 
Blackberries re-downloading all their messages.





Thank you in advance,
Josep
-- 
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve - IT Department



This transmission is intended for the use of the entity or individual to which
or whom it is addressed.  The transmission or any documents accompanying the
transmission may contain confidential information.  If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or action taken in reliance on the contents of the transmission or the
documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential
transmission in error, please destroy it and any accompanying documents and
notify the sender immediately.  Thank you.