Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-03 Thread Lee Brink
Hi Marc. I'll see what I can do about testing this version & getting some accurate results. I don't run the IMAP servers here @ Cornell and it will take a bit to co-ordinate the effort. Thanks for the info & bug fix! Lee > I did a little research and found out that we did not cache the > m

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-03 Thread Lee Brink
>> Also, (and this may not be an issue for you) are you using the filters >> plugin in SquirrelMail? > Not only is SIEVE a better alternative overall, it has been theorized > that the message_filters plugin is the main reason for the current > "chattiness". I haven't had time to look at the plug

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-02 Thread Marc Groot Koerkamp
Hello, I did a little research and found out that we did not cache the mailbox-list we retrieved through LSUB calls. This means we did a LSUB request on almost each page load for information we should have cached. The caching was broken and reintroduced again 10 minutes ago. The changes are in SM

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-02 Thread Lee Brink
> Hmm, 10K users shouldn't be a problem for a V880 of this magnitude.. we > have 4 cpu 420Rs with 4GB of RAM doing this for 8,500 users and the load > average hovers around 0.30, so I'm betting unless you have a wildly > abusive user base (not uncommon in the University setting!) some tuning > ma

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-02 Thread Chris Hilts
> Also, (and this may not be an issue for you) are you using the filters > plugin in SquirrelMail? Not only is SIEVE a better alternative overall, it has been theorized that the message_filters plugin is the main reason for the current "chattiness". I haven't had time to look at the plugin yet.

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-02 Thread Chris Winterrowd
Hmm, 10K users shouldn't be a problem for a V880 of this magnitude.. we have 4 cpu 420Rs with 4GB of RAM doing this for 8,500 users and the load average hovers around 0.30, so I'm betting unless you have a wildly abusive user base (not uncommon in the University setting!) some tuning may definitely

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-02 Thread Lee Brink
> Lee, > > The reason I'm replying is because we had a meltdown when upgrading to > Cyrus 2.1.x from the older Cyrus 1.5.x series and while SquirrelMail > helped it melt down quicker, what we found was by shutting down > SquirrelMail, the problem didn't go away.. with an average of 1,100 > *activ

Re: [SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty

2003-09-01 Thread Chris Winterrowd
Lee, I've been following some of your postings reguarding SM and Cyrus.. I don't claim to have the solution to your troubles, but here at TI, we have a similar setup and I wanted to ask you how Cyrus is configured in your installation. The reason I'm replying is because we had a meltdown whe

[SM-USERS] SquirrelMail v1.4.1 extremely chatty - Can cripple an IMAP server

2003-08-14 Thread Lee Brink
My apologies for the extreme length, but I do want to include what information I have. When Cornell upgraded from SquirrelMail v1.4.1 from v.1.2.11, our IMAP servers started to buckle and die under the load from the increased IMAP traffic. This server is no slouch (Sun VX880 w/8 processors & 32G R