I'm wondering if because the COPY might be taking a long time before
responding, that the client thinks that the server has hung or gone
away. The attached (untested) patch might solve the problem.
Paul Dekkers wrote:
Hi,
From time to time (but mostly at the start of the year ;-)), I notic
Hi Paul
On Sunday 03 January 2010 @ 13:35, Paul Dekkers wrote:
>
> Are you running 32 or 64-bits? We run 64-bits, and I realized that this
> allows a single imapd process to consume a considerable amount of
> memory (eg. all) instead of "just" 2G or so per process. (The server
> I'm talking about
Hi Brian,
On 03-01-10 03:29, Brian Awood wrote:
> We used to run into this fairly frequently when we were running 2.2 proxy
> hosts. Although it never reached the point where it caused memory
> exhaustion, usually we would catch it at an early stage because of a
Are you running 32 or 64-bits
On Friday 01 January 2010 @ 15:45, Paul Dekkers wrote:
>
> similar processes were killed. And the new archive-folder now ended up
> with several duplicates, taking about millions instead of tens of
> thousands. (We'll have to see how to dedup that, any ideas are
> appreciated otherwise I'll write
We used to run into this fairly frequently when we were running 2.2 proxy
hosts. Although it never reached the point where it caused memory
exhaustion, usually we would catch it at an early stage because of a
slowdown in replication. It always appeared to be a Thunderbird client,
and at one t
