On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Etienne Goyer wrote:
> Thanks, that answered most of my questions. One last thing :
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> > It mostly should depend on how much of the database is already populated
> > in the mupdate master. If there's nothing
Thanks, that answered most of my questions. One last thing :
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 03:43:09PM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> It mostly should depend on how much of the database is already populated
> in the mupdate master. If there's nothing there, and the database is
> syncing on every write,
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Etienne Goyer wrote:
> Why do you recommend *against* relying on this behavior ?
Because it takes much longer to write all the entires to the database than
just writing anything that the database has incorrect (as, I guess, you
discovered).
> For about 500K mailboxes (mailbo
On Tue, Feb 17, 2004 at 12:18:05PM -0500, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Etienne Goyer wrote:
>
> > I was under the impression that the mailbox list kept on the MUPDATE
> > master was volatile, that is it was recreated from scratch at each
> > start-up with the mailbox list coming fr
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Etienne Goyer wrote:
> I was under the impression that the mailbox list kept on the MUPDATE
> master was volatile, that is it was recreated from scratch at each
> start-up with the mailbox list coming from the backends.
It should be able to be reconstructed at startup of the
Hi,
I was under the impression that the mailbox list kept on the MUPDATE
master was volatile, that is it was recreated from scratch at each
start-up with the mailbox list coming from the backends. I think I
found out the hard way that this is *not* the case. Is this correct ?
--
Etienne Goy
