On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 08:09:57PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote: > RobertHoltzman put forth on 1/9/2010 5:45 PM: > > On Sat, Jan 09, 2010 at 10:27:33AM -0200, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote: > >> Klistvud wrote: > >>> I've heard maildir is more robust than mbox in that regard. Can anybody > >>> confirm if that's true or not? > >>> > >> > >> I'd say so. Since each message is a file, if one file gets corrupted > >> only that message will be affected. > > > > But it slows down searches. > > That's the general wisdom regarding search performance, but I'm not so sure that > its correct for modern systems and software. I haven't located any modern > apples-apples benchmarks of mbox vs maildir. Dovecot supports both mailbox > formats and its mbox code has been heavily optimized. It would be nice to see > this http://www.courier-mta.org/mbox-vs-maildir/ benchmark performed today but > testing dovecot-mbox vs dovecot-maildir. One of the Alpine (ex)devs claims it's true. If I ever get the time I'll see about testing it one of the distros on my desktop box. Intuitively it sounds right as a search would entail opening and closing many files as opposed to one with mbox. -- Bob Holtzman GPG key ID = 8D549279 If you think you're getting free lunch check the price of the beer.
Description: Digital signature