Hi On april 17th, I upgraded from dovecot 2.1.13 to 2.2.0. Since that time, I had two different users that reported received three incident of messages that disapeared from their mailboxes. The mailbox format is mbox on local FFS filesystem (no NFS), and I use filesystem quotas (but both users are far from filling their quotas). When the message disapeared, it was always a whole rand of dates. On the last incident reported, the user also saw some message being duplicated many times. There is something interesting in the logs: May 4 20:16:30 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size smaller than expected (2000 < 8063) May 4 20:16:30 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/.imap/INBOX/dovecot.index.cache: Broken physical size for mail UID 141869 May 4 20:19:48 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size smaller than expected (9711 < 16248) May 4 20:19:48 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/Arxiv/dovecot.index.cache: Broken physical size for mail UID 4383 May 4 21:14:35 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size smaller than expected (1878 < 8066) May 4 21:14:35 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/CNRS/dovecot.index.cache: Broken physical size for mail UID 290 May 4 21:15:17 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size smaller than expected (17285 < 24440) May 4 21:15:17 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/Commandes/dovecot.index.cache: Broken physical size for mail UID 680 Does that ring a bell? I am tempted to downgrade to 2.1.13. Does it makes sense? Is it safe to do so? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus http://hcpnet.free.fr/pubz manu at netbsd.org
On 05.05.2013 02:56, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:> May 4 20:16:30 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size > smaller than expected (2000 < 8063) > May 4 20:16:30 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index > cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/.imap/INBOX/dovecot.index.cache: Broken > physical size for mail UID 141869 > May 4 20:19:48 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size > smaller than expected (9711 < 16248) > May 4 20:19:48 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index > cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/Arxiv/dovecot.index.cache: > Broken physical size for mail UID 4383 > May 4 21:14:35 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size > smaller than expected (1878 < 8066) > May 4 21:14:35 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index > cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/CNRS/dovecot.index.cache: > Broken physical size for mail UID 290 > May 4 21:15:17 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Cached message size > smaller than expected (17285 < 24440) > May 4 21:15:17 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index > cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/Commandes/dovecot.index.cache: > Broken physical size for mail UID 680 > > Does that ring a bell? I am tempted to downgrade to 2.1.13. Does it > makes sense? Is it safe to do so?This bug has been fixed with dovecot 2.1.14. Please check: http://hg.dovecot.org/dovecot-2.1/rev/0b0399f1b6aa http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2013-February/088313.html Best regards, Morten
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 04:20:52PM +0200, Morten Stevens wrote:> >May 4 21:15:17 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index > >cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/Commandes/dovecot.index.cache: > >Broken physical size for mail UID 680 > > > >Does that ring a bell? I am tempted to downgrade to 2.1.13. Does it > >makes sense? Is it safe to do so? > > This bug has been fixed with dovecot 2.1.14.But I am running 2.2.0 ... -- Emmanuel Dreyfus manu at netbsd.org
On 05/ 6/13 11:55 AM, Emmanuel Dreyfus wrote:> On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 04:20:52PM +0200, Morten Stevens wrote: >>> May 4 21:15:17 volanges dovecot: imap(jdoe): Error: Corrupted index >>> cache file /mail/indexes/jdoe/mail/.imap/Commandes/dovecot.index.cache: >>> Broken physical size for mail UID 680 >>> >>> Does that ring a bell? I am tempted to downgrade to 2.1.13. Does it >>> makes sense? Is it safe to do so? >> This bug has been fixed with dovecot 2.1.14. > But I am running 2.2.0 ... >Have you tried 2.2.1?
On Mon, May 06, 2013 at 01:52:55PM -0400, Oscar del Rio wrote:> Have you tried 2.2.1?Will do, but since the problem cannot be reliabily reproduced, I have no way of knowing it is fixed. Is there anything in 2.2.1 changelog that hints it could be fixed? -- Emmanuel Dreyfus manu at netbsd.org
On 5.5.2013, at 3.56, Emmanuel Dreyfus <manu at netbsd.org> wrote:> On april 17th, I upgraded from dovecot 2.1.13 to 2.2.0. Since that time, > I had two different users that reported received three incident of > messages that disapeared from their mailboxes. > > The mailbox format is mbox on local FFS filesystem (no NFS), and I use > filesystem quotas (but both users are far from filling their quotas). > When the message disapeared, it was always a whole rand of dates. On the > last incident reported, the user also saw some message being duplicated > many times.There are some locking code changes between v2.1 and v2.2, which I guess might be buggy. But I can't reproduce any corruption with stress testing. What's your doveconf -n output? Are you delivering mails via dovecot-lda or something external?> Does that ring a bell? I am tempted to downgrade to 2.1.13. Does it > makes sense? Is it safe to do so?When downgrading, I recommend latest v2.1.