On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
Having watched the activity, the thing which seems to consume most of the
resources are the LIST "" * and LIST "" % commands. These return with a
response like "OK Completed (1.480 secs 28 calls)" but can take a very
long real time. Is there anything
On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, John Alton Tamplin wrote:
> Is the recommendation for skiplist compared just to flat or to db3 as
> well? If the latter, how is reliability compared to db3, and does that
> extend to the other uses besides mboxlist?
skiplist is recommended above all the other backends for th
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Rob Siemborski wrote:
> > Having watched the activity, the thing which seems to consume most of the
> > resources are the LIST "" * and LIST "" % commands. These return with a
> > response like "OK Completed (1.480 secs 28 calls)" but can take a very
> > long real time. Is t
a" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2002 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Slow LIST command
> Rob Siemborski wrote:
> [skiplist]
> > No, it doesn't have a specific in-core cache, it relies on the
filesystem
> > cache alone (it mm
Rob Siemborski wrote:
[skiplist]
No, it doesn't have a specific in-core cache, it relies on the filesystem
cache alone (it mmap()s the db file and uses that directly).
Can you tell offhand if it does any of the mmap() stuff that's a no-no
on HP-UX platform (eg. same process mapping two overlappi
On Thu, 12 Dec 2002, Jeremy Rumpf wrote:
> Out of sheer curiosity. I'm assuming the skiplist backend also uses an in core
> cache as well? If so, is it also tuneable or does it dynamically extend
> itself?
No, it doesn't have a specific in-core cache, it relies on the filesystem
cache alone (it m
> Cyrus doesn't do anything to increase the BDB cache
> size, and the default (256 kB) is way too small for any reasonably large
> site. With some 5 mailboxes and random operations, I found the hit rate
> for default BDB cache to be 70-80%. After growing the cache size to 2M, hit
> rate approa
Richard Gilbert wrote:
Having watched the activity, the thing which seems to consume most of the
resources are the LIST "" * and LIST "" % commands. These return with a
response like "OK Completed (1.480 secs 28 calls)" but can take a very
long real time. Is there anything which can be done to s
Am Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:37:52 -0500 (EST)
schrieb Dave McMurtrie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
How about this one?
http://www.horde.org/imapproxy/
I use it for webmail and it builds and works fine on any Unix.
> We're using it, and a handful of other sites might be using it, too. If
> you're interested,
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Richard Gilbert wrote:
> We are providing a webmail service to this year's new students (< 8000)
> based on IMP. I am running Cyrus imapd version 2.1.9 with Berkeley DB
> 3.3.11 on a Sun 420R with 4 x 450 MHz processors and 4Gbytes of memory,
> but it is on its knees at busy
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Richard Gilbert wrote:
> Thank you for your speedy response. Where do I read all about the
> skiplist backend? Within the distribution doc/ tree it is only referred
> to in changes. Or should I just search the list archives?
The archives are probably more useful.
The shor
On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Richard Gilbert wrote:
> Having watched the activity, the thing which seems to consume most of the
> resources are the LIST "" * and LIST "" % commands. These return with a
> response like "OK Completed (1.480 secs 28 calls)" but can take a very
> long real time. Is there an
12 matches
Mail list logo
