similar to: dbox benchmarks

I wasted too much time today doing this, but they do show a few interesting things: 1) mmap_disable=yes is faster than mmap_disable=no. I didn't expect this. I'm not yet sure why this is, but possibly because then it updates the mail index by reading the changes from dovecot.index.log, instead of reopening and re-mmaping dovecot.index. At least that's the biggest difference between

I thought I'd try benchmarking with dbmail (v2.2.4) to see how much slower a SQL backend could actually be. Skip to bottom for the conclusions. Originally I ran the tests with the databases being in XFS filesystem. MySQL's performance was horrible. It went 3-7x faster with ext3. MySQL 5.0.30 backend (innodb): ./imaptest clients=1 - append=100 seed=1 secs=30 msgs=1000000 logout=0

I just changed Dovecot v1.1 code to work much more nicely when appending new messages to large mailboxes. Dovecot hg (cydir format, fsync_disable=yes): ./imaptest secs=1 ./imaptest - append=100,0 logout=0 msgs=10000000 clients=1 seed=1 secs=300 Logi Sele Appe 100% 100% 100% 1 1 2322 1/ 1 0 0 1998 1/ 1 0 0 2293 1/ 1 0 0 2009 1/ 1 0 0 1789 1/ 1 0

Some new features in CVS HEAD are: - v1.0 saves most of the data to dovecot.index.cache only when the client is FETCHing the messages. With mboxes the message headers are saved while parsing the mbox, which is almost the same thing. With CVS HEAD the dovecot.index.cache file is updated already when the new messages are being saved (with deliver or IMAP APPEND). This avoids reading the message

The biggest problem with getting v1.0 out was getting its index file code stable. v1.1 plans included doing large changes to the index file code, so it's important to get the new code stable as soon as possible. Since I've managed to stay pretty productive for the last few weeks, I've been mostly just coding the index changes. Once I'm sure that the code is again fully working

I cleaned up the lib-storage code a bit so that it's easier to write support for new mailbox formats. It could still use a bit of cleaning up. Anyway, I thought I'd try how easy it would be to implement Cyrus-like mail store which would consist of only Dovecot's index files and "<uid>." message files. Flags and everything else is kept only in Dovecot's index files

Hi All, We're on migration stage to a new 2-node active/active cluster with shared iSCSI storage,? everything is ready, but we are in the process of I/O testing, before we going to in production. Cluster info: 2 nodes with CentOS 7.4 balancer ( keepalived + ldirectord ), 2 dovecot directors, 2 dovecot IMAP backends, 2 Postfix SMTP, gfs2 ( corosync + dlm ), LMTP between Postfix and Dovecot

Now that I have a working kvm setup, I thought I'd finally try how Zimbra works. This is mainly some microbenchmarking, so it may not have much to do with actual performance in real life. Setup: - 1GB memory given to kvm (from host's 2GB) - Intel Core 2 6600 (kvm uses only one CPU) - CentOS 5 - 15GB qcow2 image on XFS filesystem - Zimbra 5.0 RC2 RHEL5 x86_64 - Dovecot latest hg,

I have been testing with imaptest and getting 'stalls', I tried even building from source and static. Even running it on the same host. Anyone knows what I could doing wrong? [@~]# ./imaptest - append=100,0 logout=0 host=192.168.10.44 port=143 user=test2 pass=xxxxxxxx seed=100 secs=240 clients=1 mbox=64kb.mbox box=INBOX/test Logi Sele Appe 100% 100% 100% 1 1 5 1/ 1 0

Hi list, I want to test performance of dovecot-1.0.5 on OpenBSD and FreeBSD. I want to implement a small pop3s/imaps server with ~3000 users. I had tested dovecot-1.0.5 with vpopmail+mysql but I don't know if the performance is ok. Anybody have test with imaptest? OpenBSD 4.1 amd64 SMP dovecot-1.0.5 vpopmail-5.4.22 ./imaptest seed=1 secs=60 Totals: Logi List Stat Sele Fetc Fet2 Stor Dele

v1.1 plans have changed a bit. I'll release v1.1.alpha1 soon and hope to have a stable v1.1 in a month or two. The rest of the features that didn't make it into v1.1 will go to v1.2. I'll write more about this when v1.1 alpha is released. I also did a bit of benchmarking. v1.1's performance improvements are looking pretty great, it seems to be twice as fast as v1.0. v1.0:

Hi I'am doing some tests with nginx proxy -> dovecot using imaptest: imaptest user=user host=host pass=pass msgs=50 clients=100 Logi List Stat Sele Fetc Fet2 Stor Dele Expu Appe Logo 100% 50% 50% 100% 100% 100% 50% 100% 100% 100% 100% 30% 5% 41 19 10 36 24 39 9 13 11 8 12 100/100 10 12 11 17 24 31 3

Hi, The measurements were created under the following conditions : ? operating system : Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.6 (Santiago) kernel in version 2.6.32-504.el6.x86_64 ? virtual server (VMware) with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) 4vCPU E5649 x 2,526 GHz (2 cores per virtual socket) and 4 GB RAM ? 7,200 RPM SATA 1TB (FC SAN IBM System Storage N3400) ? all file systems had been formated in

Hello, I'm migrating a mail server from a centos 5 cluster architecture to a centos 6 cluster architecture. The new cluster involves faster machines then the old cluster, and a virtual machine. I use dovecot-2.0.9-5.el6.x86_64, while the old cluster uses dovecot-2.0.1-1_118.el5. Tha mail server uses mysql for the users database, and a local ldap for authentication. The storage is also much

We have done some benchmarking tests using dovecot 2.0.12 to find the best shared filesystem for hosting many users, here I share with you the results, notice the bad perfomance of all the shared filesystems against the local storage. Is there any specific optimization/tunning on dovecot for use GFS2 on rhel6??, we have configured the director to make the user mailbox persistent in a node, we will

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

I wondered why mdbox_rotate_size is 2MB by default. I thought if I increased it to 16MB, maybe there would be less disk io, but I dont see any difference. Furthermore I read in some thread that increasing it from 2MB, could give problems when deleting messages, can someone explain this? Does anyone have this on a cephfs mount, does it make sense to set this to 4MB? [@test2 ~]# pr -m -t

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%

Hey guys, Has anybody ever used imaptest to benchmark *ONLY* reads? I'm trying to run a battery of tests in my new cluster and apparently no combination of parameters works, because fetch instruction doesn't run. Below is the command I'm using and its partial output imaptest/src/imaptest host=$SERVER_IP port=143 user=teste%d at example%d.com pass=$TEST_PASS users=10 domains=10

Greetings - I've now got as far as playing with the imaptest10 test utility to see if I can stress-test our development server. imaptest10 is built against dovecot-1.0rc28 It may just be that I'm excessively heavy handed, but when I let imaptest10 rip with the command... ./imaptest10 user=test%03d host=testserver.imap.york.ac.uk clients=50 mbox=./dovecot.mbox msgs=1000 secs=30