similar to: Moving messages on test server, dovecot.index.log was locked for x seconds on cephfs

Hi, try running this on the NEW dovecot server: doveadm backup -u uid -R tcp:192.168.10.43:542 to pull the messages from old server. Sami > On 22 Jan 2019, at 16.52, Marc Roos <M.Roos at f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote: > > > > Hi Martin, > > I feel a bit like an idiot, but I have been trying with copy, so I do > not lose any message when testing. But I can't

This pulls over the whole test mailbox, but I need it to be stored in a different mailbox, of course that is now possible to move from the local test to the local INBOX/test2. But then I might aswell scp the mbox in the first place. Should we conclude that it is not possible with a single doveadm command to move messages from RemoteServerA/usertest/mailboxA/messagesof2017 to

Hi Martin, I feel a bit like an idiot, but I have been trying with copy, so I do not lose any message when testing. But I can't get them to copy. I do indeed have same uid and gid. [@~]# doveadm mailbox status -S 192.168.10.43:542 -u testuser -t messages test messages=43 [@~]# doveadm mailbox status -u testuser -t messages INBOX/test2 messages=16 [@~]# doveadm -v copy -S

Hi, some time back we had similar discussions when we, as an email provider, discussed to move away from traditional NAS/NFS storage to Ceph. The problem with POSIX file systems and dovecot is that e.g. with mdbox only around ~20% of the IO operations are READ/WRITE, the rest are metadata IOs. You will not change this with using CephFS since it will basically behave the same way as e.g. NFS. We

Hello Jack, yes, I imagine I'll have to do some work on tuning the block size on cephfs. Thanks for the advise. I knew that using mdbox, messages are not removed but I though that was true in sdbox too. Thanks again. We'll soon do benchmarks of sdbox vs mdbox over cephfs with bluestore backend. We'll have to do some some work on how to simulate user traffic, for writes and readings.

Thanks Jack. That's good to know. It is definitely something to consider. In a distributed storage scenario we might build a dedicated pool for that and tune the pool as more capacity or performance is needed. Regards, Webert Lima DevOps Engineer at MAV Tecnologia *Belo Horizonte - Brasil* *IRC NICK - WebertRLZ* On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 4:45 PM Jack <ceph at jack.fr.eu.org> wrote:

I'm sending this message to both dovecot and ceph-users ML so please don't mind if something seems too obvious for you. Hi, I have a question for both dovecot and ceph lists and below I'll explain what's going on. Regarding dbox format (https://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/dbox), when using sdbox, a new file is stored for each email message. When using mdbox, multiple

I think sdbox or mdbox format is what you are looking for > On 2 Dec 2018, at 09:47, Marc Roos <M.Roos at f1-outsourcing.eu> wrote: > > > No one an idea? I like to put some "archive" folders on a less iops > storage. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Roos > Sent: donderdag 29 november 2018 18:09 > To: dovecot > Subject:

I wanted to move messages from a mbox mailbox on server A to mdbox on server B. I thought I could do this by connecting to the remote server with "doveadm move -S x.x.x.x:x -u testuser Archive/2017 mailbox INBOX/test" but I guess this will only allow and move messages internally on server B? Should I use dsync, or is there another way to move the messages?

Hi, doveadm [-Dv] move [-S socket_path] -u user destination [user source_user] search_query Moving all mails from mailbox INBOX/test on serverA to mailbox Archive/2017 on local serverB. + destination Archive/2017 must exist + Limitation: source_user and testuser must share the same UID and GID doveadm move -S x.x.x.x:x -u testuserAtServerB? Archive/2017 user source_userAtServerA mailbox

I would like to relocate the subfolders of the Sent folder to a different location. Now send messages mail is stored in mbox format at the location /home/users/testuser/mail/.Sent. I would like to store the subfolders Sent/2017 and Sent/2018 at the location /home/archive/users/testuser/.Sent.2017 and /home/archive/users/testuser/.Sent.2018 Is this even possible? I am using currently using

Thanks Sami, And I should allow access on the remote server via login_access_sockets? And the authenticated user via this connection is then testuser I presume? > > > Is there a page that explains how to connect to a remote server? What > is the syntax of socket_path? > > > doveadm search -S XXXXXXX -u testuser mailbox INBOX ALL -S <ip>:<port> Sami

mdbox format is a cross between mbox and sdbox. The idea is that it keeps up to mdbox_rotate_size sized mbox files which contain mails. Using zlib here will not help, because zlib is not applied to the full mdbox file, but individual mails within. Also not sure why you think that adding compression would make things faster? =) I am not fully sure how cephfs works but you might get better

Is there a page that explains how to connect to a remote server? What is the syntax of socket_path? doveadm search -S XXXXXXX -u testuser mailbox INBOX ALL

Michal Pr??vozn??k > On 6/12/23 20:17, Jerry Buburuz wrote: >> Just found my issue. >> After I removed the cephfs mounts it worked! >> I will debug ceph. >> I assumed because I could touch files on mounted cephfs it was working. Now virsh list works! > Out of curiosity. Do you perhaps have a storage pool defined over cephfs? I can see two possible sources for the

I have test environment to determine what would be best settings. I have been told that enabling zlib compression would be good to save iops on storage. But doing the test now, I get worse results. [@test2 ~]# pr -m -t mail04-mdbox-vdb-append-64kb-6.log mail04-mdbox-vdb-append-64kb-8.log |less Logi Sele Appe Logi Sele Appe 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Hi Martin I just found the file, it's a config file that about 250 hosts read every half an hour so it makes sense this is getting some contention. However, the strange thing is, the share the file is in is a read-only share: [dist$] comment = Windows dist path = /path/to/share wide links = Yes browseable = Yes read only = Yes guest only = Yes

Hi list, we have migrated a single node Samba server from Ubuntu Trusty to a 3-node CTDB Cluster on Debian Bullseye with Sernet packages. Storage is CephFS. We are running Samba in Standalone Mode with LDAP Backend. Samba Version: sernet-samba 99:4.18.2-2debian11 I don't know if it is relevant here's how we have mounted CephFS on the samba nodes: (fstab):/samba /srv/samba ceph

Hi David, On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:34:25 +0100, David C via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I have a newly implemented two node CTDB cluster running on CentOS 7, Samba > 4.7.1 > > The node network is a direct 1Gb link > > Storage is Cephfs > > ctdb status is OK > > It seems to be running well so far but I'm frequently seeing the following >

Hi Martin Many thanks for the detailed response. A few follow-ups inline: On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 5:19 AM Martin Schwenke <martin at meltin.net> wrote: > Hi David, > > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 19:34:25 +0100, David C via samba > <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > > > I have a newly implemented two node CTDB cluster running on CentOS 7, > Samba > > 4.7.1