On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 5:21 AM, C. Bensend wrote:
>
>> "Rough timings" are more difficult to work with. I asked because my
>> tests showed similar numbers to Tomas', where the patch should result
>> in about a 50% speedup on mailbox load.
>>
>> The patch should have NO impact on clicking Next/Pr
> "Rough timings" are more difficult to work with. I asked because my
> tests showed similar numbers to Tomas', where the patch should result
> in about a 50% speedup on mailbox load.
>
> The patch should have NO impact on clicking Next/Previous. The only
> significant change to Next/Previous is
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:07 PM, C. Bensend wrote:
>
>> How did you quantify that? Or is it just a random guess based on
>> how responsive the interface *seems* to you?
>
> Sorry, Paul, I don't really have any metrics here... I flipped
> strings.php back and forth between patched and not patched
Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:51 AM, C. Bensend wrote:
>>
>>> The issue is the array_walk() in sq_mb_list_encodings(), which does
>>> not cache its results. The attached patch is still slower than the
>>> pre-1.4.20 code, but it's much closer. Testing and feedback is
>>
> How did you quantify that? Or is it just a random guess based on
> how responsive the interface *seems* to you?
Sorry, Paul, I don't really have any metrics here... I flipped
strings.php back and forth between patched and not patched again,
and did some rough timings...
I'm averaging about 8
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 6:51 AM, C. Bensend wrote:
>
>> The issue is the array_walk() in sq_mb_list_encodings(), which does
>> not cache its results. The attached patch is still slower than the
>> pre-1.4.20 code, but it's much closer. Testing and feedback is
>> appreciated.
>
> I've applied thi
> The issue is the array_walk() in sq_mb_list_encodings(), which does
> not cache its results. The attached patch is still slower than the
> pre-1.4.20 code, but it's much closer. Testing and feedback is
> appreciated.
I've applied this patch, and it seems a little faster... Maybe a
10 to 20%
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 10:46 AM, Tomas Kuliavas
wrote:
>
>
> C. Bensend wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> After vetting 1.4.20 on a development server, I rolled it out to
>> my colocated server successfully.
>>
>> Since then, the performance in the web interface has taken a
>> pretty bad hit
>>After vetting 1.4.20 on a development server, I rolled it out to
>> my colocated server successfully.
>>
>>Since then, the performance in the web interface has taken a
>> pretty bad hit. With 1.4.19, bringing up each email was almost
>> instantaneous, now there is a several second lag b
C. Bensend wrote:
>
>
> Hey folks,
>
>After vetting 1.4.20 on a development server, I rolled it out to
> my colocated server successfully.
>
>Since then, the performance in the web interface has taken a
> pretty bad hit. With 1.4.19, bringing up each email was almost
> instantaneous,
Hey folks,
After vetting 1.4.20 on a development server, I rolled it out to
my colocated server successfully.
Since then, the performance in the web interface has taken a
pretty bad hit. With 1.4.19, bringing up each email was almost
instantaneous, now there is a several second lag betwee
On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Chris Hilts wrote:
> Scott Haneda wrote:
>> Nice stats, thanks. I am strongly looking into Dovecot with maildir
>> format, anyone care to comment on that? I know it is still in beta,
>> but it seems solid, abd builds clean on OS X in test so far.
> Can't comment on Do
> Hi Tomas,
>
> You give some sort times for several IMAP servers, do you happen to have
> sort times for Dovecot??
Not yet. Dovecot supports many different mailbox formats and I haven't
profiled it.
--
Tomas
-
This SF.Net
Scott Haneda wrote:
> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server
> which support IMAP.
>
> SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail in a
> single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into the server, and
> select a mailbox, one in which I fee
> Hi Tomas,
>
> You give some sort times for several IMAP servers, do you happen to have
> sort times for Dovecot??
Dovecot mbox mailbox with 5k messages
SELECT time - 4,35 ms
Caching difference - 2702,9 ms
SORT FROM - 242 ms
Dovecot maildir mailbox with 5k messages
SELECT time - 8,64 ms
Caching
Scott Haneda wrote:
> Nice stats, thanks. I am strongly looking into Dovecot with maildir
> format, anyone care to comment on that? I know it is still in beta,
> but it seems solid, abd builds clean on OS X in test so far.
Can't comment on Dovcecot, but on the other end of things I'd highly
r
Nice stats, thanks. I am strongly looking into Dovecot with maildir
format, anyone care to comment on that? I know it is still in beta,
but it seems solid, abd builds clean on OS X in test so far.
On Oct 3, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
> Select times for mailbox with 5000 message
Hi Tomas,
You give some sort times for several IMAP servers, do you happen to have sort
times for Dovecot??
Redards,
-Rich
On Fri, October 3, 2008 05:34, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
>
>
> Jesse Michaels wrote:
>>
>> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server
>> which support IMA
Jesse Michaels wrote:
>
> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server
> which support IMAP.
>
> SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail in a
> single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into the server, and
> select a mailbox, one in whi
On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Karl Pearson wrote:
>> And the EIMS developer showed surprising ignorance regarding this
>> fact. That's the biggest sign to me that you need to find a better
>> IMAP server.
>
> Might I suggest switching to Dovecot. I don't know if it's possible,
> but
> when I made
On Oct 1, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
>> Not off the top of my head. It's been a long time since I've delved
>> into it, my Real Life has really slammed my development time.
>
> If you insist on keeping enormous INBOXes (bad form IMO), try
> SquirrelMail 1.5.2, where header fetching
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Paul Lesniewski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Chris Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Scott Haneda wrote:
3 seconds just to tell you how many messages there are. Now imagine how
long it takes to fetch headers.
>>>
>>> I know, I feel it is slow as well.
>
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Chris Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Scott Haneda wrote:
>>> 3 seconds just to tell you how many messages there are. Now imagine how
>>> long it takes to fetch headers.
>>
>> I know, I feel it is slow as well.
Your response doesn't indicate you understood what
Scott Haneda wrote:
>> 3 seconds just to tell you how many messages there are. Now imagine how
>> long it takes to fetch headers.
>
> I know, I feel it is slow as well. To better help me get this into
> perspective, what hardware examples can you give me as for cpu and
> drives, and how many mes
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Chris Hilts wrote:
> Scott Haneda wrote:
>> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server
>> which support IMAP.
>>
>> SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail
>> in a
>> single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into t
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Chris Hilts wrote:
> Scott Haneda wrote:
>> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server
>> which support IMAP.
>>
>> SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail
>> in a
>> single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into t
Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server
which support IMAP.
SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail in a
single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into the server, and
select a mailbox, one in which I feel it is not that large, perhaps
> Becky L. Sabino, LAN Administrator wrote:
> > Just FYI:
> >
> >
> > I installed 1.5.1 and here were the results:
> >
> >
> > 1.5.1
> > From the time I clicked login until folder list displayed 55
> > seconds From the time I clicked login until inbox messages displayed 4
> > min 44 seconds
> >
>
Trust me, he is not alone
she.
:)
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games.
Get your fingers limbered up and give it your best shot. 4 great events, 4
opportunities to win big! Highest score wins.NEC IT Guy Games. Play to
win an NE
Becky L. Sabino, LAN Administrator wrote:
> Just FYI:
>
>
> I installed 1.5.1 and here were the results:
>
>
> 1.5.1
> From the time I clicked login until folder list displayed 55
> seconds From the time I clicked login until inbox messages displayed 4
> min 44 seconds
>
> 1.4.3
> From the time I
Chris Hilts wrote:
>> Thanks for the quick reply, I'll give 1.5.1 a shot. Any
>> guestimate on when it might be released as a stable version? Believe me,
>> I
>> would LOVE to switch to a different IMAP server, I've been begging to go
>> to sendmail for years with no success. *sigh*. I'll let y
Just FYI:
I installed 1.5.1 and here were the results:
1.5.1
From the time I clicked login until folder list displayed 55
seconds
From the time I clicked login until inbox messages displayed 4
min 44 seconds
1.4.3
From th
> Thanks for the quick reply, I'll give 1.5.1 a shot. Any
> guestimate on when it might be released as a stable version? Believe me, I
> would LOVE to switch to a different IMAP server, I've been begging to go
> to sendmail for years with no success. *sigh*. I'll let you know what
> impact 1.5.1
tir, 03.05.2005 kl. 20.16 skrev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> My configuration:
>
> SM v 1.4.4
> XAMPP 1.4.13
> Apache 2.0.53
> PHP 4.3.11
> MySQL 4.1.11
> eAccelerator 0.9.2a
> running on Fedora Core 3
> hp proliant DL360
> 2GB RAM
> intel xeon 3.6GHz CPU
>
> Our IMAP server is PMDF V6.2 runnin
Thanks for the quick reply, I'll give 1.5.1 a shot. Any
guestimate on when it might be released as a stable version?
Believe me, I would LOVE to switch to a different IMAP server,
I've been begging to go to sendmail for years with no success.
*sigh*. I'll
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My configuration:
>
>
> SM v 1.4.4
> XAMPP 1.4.13
> Apache 2.0.53
> PHP 4.3.11
> MySQL 4.1.11
> eAccelerator 0.9.2a running on Fedora Core 3 hp proliant DL360 2GB RAM
> intel xeon 3.6GHz CPU
>
> Our IMAP server is PMDF V6.2 running on VMS
>
>
> SqirrelMail runs like a c
My configuration:
SM v 1.4.4
XAMPP 1.4.13
Apache 2.0.53
PHP 4.3.11
MySQL 4.1.11
eAccelerator 0.9.2a
running on Fedora Core 3
hp proliant DL360
2GB RAM
intel xeon 3.6GHz CPU
Our IMAP server is PMDF V6.2 running on VMS
SqirrelMail runs like a charm on smaller mailboxes but is v-e-r-y slow
tir, 03.05.2005 kl. 13.13 skrev Jerry Mersel:
> For the longest time I had this problem of performance when using
> the squirrelmail server. I finally found the problem, and I hope that
> it can help someone else.
> The problem was browscap.ini. After removing this file and its use via
> php.i
Hi:
For the longest time I had this problem of performance when using
the squirrelmail server. I finally found the problem, and I hope that
it can help someone else.
The problem was browscap.ini. After removing this file and its use via
php.ini the performance improved. I found this surprising s
Hello Fran,
On Wednesday, November 10, 2004, Fran Fabrizio wrote...
> I have SM running on the same host as my Courier-IMAP install and I
> have also installed imapproxy, enabled server side sorting and
> server side threading. All of these things did help - I went from
> not being able to pull u
another thing to consider is that if you were just accessing the maildir for
the first time, your imap server has to build its internal cache (courier
does this, I know). Try accessing the folder with another imap client first,
and then see how it fares with squirrelmail. I have zero issues w
On Friday 12 November 2004 06:05 am, Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
> > Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
> >>I think bottleneck is in your filesystem. Compare directory access times
> >>on different filesystems. Find the one that can access directories with
> >>many small files faster.
> >
> > This evening I set up a
> Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
>
>>
>>I think bottleneck is in your filesystem. Compare directory access times
>>on different filesystems. Find the one that can access directories with
>>many small files faster.
>>
>>
> This evening I set up a test. I used the same Maildir ~850MB in size
> with 27k mess
Tomas Kuliavas wrote:
I think bottleneck is in your filesystem. Compare directory access times
on different filesystems. Find the one that can access directories with
many small files faster.
This evening I set up a test. I used the same Maildir ~850MB in size
with 27k messages in my INBOX in
> I have SM running on the same host as my Courier-IMAP install and I have
> also installed imapproxy, enabled server side sorting and server side
> threading. All of these things did help - I went from not being able to
> pull up a folder with 27k messages in it to being able to bring it up in
>
I have SM running on the same host as my Courier-IMAP install and I
have also installed imapproxy, enabled server side sorting and server
side threading. All of these things did help - I went from not being
able to pull up a folder with 27k messages in it to being able to
bring it up in around
p dont think wrote:
I have SM running on the same host as my Courier-IMAP install and I
have also installed imapproxy, enabled server side sorting and server
side threading. All of these things did help - I went from not being
able to pull up a folder with 27k messages in it to being able to
I have SM running on the same host as my Courier-IMAP install and I have
also installed imapproxy, enabled server side sorting and server side
threading. All of these things did help - I went from not being able to
pull up a folder with 27k messages in it to being able to bring it up in
aroun
I have SM running on the same host as my Courier-IMAP install and I have
also installed imapproxy, enabled server side sorting and server side
threading. All of these things did help - I went from not being able to
pull up a folder with 27k messages in it to being able to bring it up in
around
Hello everybody!
Initialy by mistake I posted this message to the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] sorry for
that. I don't know how to move/delete it from there so
I am posting it here again.
Squirrelmail works slow. Especially for loging
process.
But the strange thing is when I restart Apache it's
working fine
> Hmmm... My guess is that the problem is due to the load sharing + the
> fact that multiple users access the Maildir at once, were it only 1
> server accessing the Maildir for all 20 users, it could eventually cache
> the whole Maildir, or at the very least, you'd get a lot more cache
> hits. Bu
> Courier = famd (yay SGI). RedHat's (RHEL3, RHAS3) famd is demonstrably
> broken, or I'm a turd. So install the SGI famd source (as I did).
> www.sgi.com and search for linux or open source.
This would probably help if clients were using Thunderbird or Outlook but
I don't think Squirrelmail makes
Ronan said:
> Hello,
>
> I'd appreciate any help or suggestions anyone would have with the
> following...
>
> I have 2 servers (both Dell PE2650s, 2GB RAM, Dual Xeon) running RHEL 3
> ES (with latest updates), and the latest Red Hat supplied Squirrelmail
> (squirrelmail-1.4.3-0.e3.1) and Courier I
fre, 23.07.2004 kl. 18.43 skrev Ronan:
> I'd appreciate any help or suggestions anyone would have with the
> following...
>
> I have 2 servers (both Dell PE2650s, 2GB RAM, Dual Xeon) running RHEL 3
> ES (with latest updates), and the latest Red Hat supplied Squirrelmail
> (squirrelmail-1.4.3-0.e
> Hello,
>
>
> I'd appreciate any help or suggestions anyone would have with the
> following...
>
> I have 2 servers (both Dell PE2650s, 2GB RAM, Dual Xeon) running RHEL 3
> ES (with latest updates), and the latest Red Hat supplied Squirrelmail
> (squirrelmail-1.4.3-0.e3.1) and Courier IMAP (co
Hello,
I'd appreciate any help or suggestions anyone would have with the
following...
I have 2 servers (both Dell PE2650s, 2GB RAM, Dual Xeon) running RHEL 3
ES (with latest updates), and the latest Red Hat supplied Squirrelmail
(squirrelmail-1.4.3-0.e3.1) and Courier IMAP (courier-imap-3.0.4).
Hi,
I am using SM 1.4.3.a on Redhat ES3.0 against the Oracle Collaboration
Suite IMAP4 server. If you are not familiar witnthis it's an IMAP4 server
where the store is the Oracle database.
I have used a number of IMAP4 clients without problem. Generally SM works
really well, and I'm really impr
Hi there!
I am using squirrelmail with
postfix and cyrus on a suse-linux-machine with apache. The problem i have, is
the performance. I am waiting about 2 minutes until the pages is loaded. The load
on the server is increasing a little bit, not really a problem. So i am asking
where the
Hi there!
I am using squirrelmail with
postfix and cyrus on a suse-linux-machine with apache. The problem i have, is
the performance. I am waiting about 2 minutes until the pages is loaded. The
load on the server is increasing a little bit, not really a problem. So i am
asking where the
HI all,
i know that there is a FAQ where some performance
related facts are described but i still would like to ask
something.
first the details to my system
webmail :
squirellmail 1.4.1
mailserver :
courier 0.43.1
cpu
: amd-k6 400 MHz
memory : 192
MB
> webmail :squirellmail 1.4.1
> mailserver:courier 0.43.1
> cpu : amd-k6 400 MHz
> memory : 192 MB
> disk: 20 GB
> apache: Server version: Apache/2.0.47
You're running 6 domains, web services, PHP, mail services on THAT
machine? No wonder you
61 matches
Mail list logo
