Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 12:18:02 -0500 From: Jeffrey Goldberg <jeffrey@goldmark.org> To: Rob <r17fbsd@xxiii.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: performance hints (6.2) Message-ID: <07BCE366-AA5A-4BE0-9D3B-2403CAEB8B58@goldmark.org> In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20070818113706.02c7b950@mailsvr.xxiii.com> References: <4B90A9A7-D8D6-49C5-B097-00094486EF4A@messier.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20070818113706.02c7b950@mailsvr.xxiii.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Aug 18, 2007, at 10:41 AM, Rob wrote: > What mailfile format are you using - mbox / mdir? And while it > might be a major change, consider dumping UW and using Dovecot > http://dovecot.org/ UW's performance, scalability, and security > have been less than great for many years. UW's performance and scalability is just fine if you use their *recommended* mailbox format, mbx. It's only if you use mbox (unix) which is provided for transition and backwards compatibility that you experience performance and scalability problems. I have no problem with mailboxes with more than 20K messages in mbx format using UW-IMAP. In my experience, all of the performance complaints about UW-IMAP have to do with people using legacy mailbox formats. UW appears to be the only IMAP server which provides support for such legacy formats, so that is probably why it takes so much blame for the performance problems of such mailboxes. See http://www.washington.edu/imap/documentation/formats.txt.html for Mark Crispin's rant about mailbox formats to help understand the choices made in UW-IMAP. There may be plenty of good reasons to prefer dovecote or cyrus or zimbra over UW-IMAP, but on this performance and scalability issue, UW-IMAP has had an unfair rap. -j -- Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?07BCE366-AA5A-4BE0-9D3B-2403CAEB8B58>