Mike, this means that the I/O hit from "upgrading" will happen at the time
you XFER the mailbox. That's good because you can control the I/O by
spreading out your XFERs, if it's even a problem. I moved a lot of
mailboxes (30,000+) without really noticing a problem. I did try to
perform the m
>From 2.3 to 2.4 upgraded automatically.
>From x to 2.5 doesn't upgrade automatically at the moment. You have to run
reconstruct -V max on the folder afterwards.
Maybe for the XFER case we should upgrade automatically... I'll talk to Ellie
about that when she gets in today. She's the 2.5 mainta
Does an XFER automatically upgrade the mailbox to the new format? I don't
remember having performance problems when I moved users from a v2.3
backend to a new v2.4 backend (a long time ago).
Andy
On Tue, 21 Apr 2015, Bron Gondwana wrote:
> I would wait for 2.5.1, which should be out i
I would wait for 2.5.1, which should be out in a day or so. There were
some XFER bugs in 2.5.0.
The IO hit will have to be taken regardless, it's just deferred
slightly. The 2.5 backend will work with 2.2 proxies just fine, though
of course most of the new features won't be visible to your clien
On 2015-04-20 17:16, k...@rice.edu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:11:00PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
>> Under the scenario, would 2.5 work better?
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Hi Mike,
>
> In our case, the unconstrained I/O caused by the mandatory mailbox
> format conversion on first use would have
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 05:11:00PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
> Under the scenario, would 2.5 work better?
>
> Mike
>
Hi Mike,
In our case, the unconstrained I/O caused by the mandatory mailbox
format conversion on first use would have necessitated a prolonged
service outage to prevent overl
Under the scenario, would 2.5 work better?
Mike
On 04/20/2015 04:45 PM, k...@rice.edu wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:23:07PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
>> We currently have:
>>
>> Cyrus Front-End servers running 2.2.12
>> Cyrus Back-End running 2.3.16
>>
>> I have built a
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 04:23:07PM -0400, Michael D. Sofka wrote:
> We currently have:
>
>Cyrus Front-End servers running 2.2.12
>Cyrus Back-End running 2.3.16
>
> I have built a new back-end server running 2.4.17.
>
>
> I plan on adding the new, 2.4 server, to the aggregate, an
We currently have:
Cyrus Front-End servers running 2.2.12
Cyrus Back-End running 2.3.16
I have built a new back-end server running 2.4.17.
I plan on adding the new, 2.4 server, to the aggregate, and move all the
mailboxes. I would rather not upgrade the front-end servers, since
(taking it back to the list in case it's useful to others)
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015, at 05:45 PM, Lalot Dominique wrote:
> Hello Bron
>
> Unfortunately I would'nt be able to go to The Hague..
Oh well :)
> Just as a simple question, the only drawback of not using is that you
> won't be able to share
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015, at 04:32 PM, Lalot Dominique wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We used cyrus for many years and switch to a proprietary system. We
> are juste looking back to cyrus. I would like to know the status of
> cyrus and HA: This documentation seems to consider that replication is
> edge..
> http://cy
11 matches
Mail list logo
