[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: unable to open mailbox

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 01:56:23PM -0600, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> RobertHoltzman put forth on 1/10/2010 1:01 AM:

> > 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.
> I completely agree with this position.  Technically it makes sense.  This is one
> reason I went with mbox on my Dovecot server.  I'd just like to see some recent
> modern benchmarks proving so and to what degree.  My gut instinct says that mbox
> is faster, but probably not to such an extent that it would really make a
> difference from the "human latency" standpoint.  I have a list mail file with
> 10,600 messages in it.

Piker. One of mine hs over 52k.

> The longest simple body search time I've had through
> T-Bird (server side search) is about 8-10 seconds wall clock time.  If I'd
> chosen maildir instead of mbox, and maildir took 16-20 seconds for the same
> search, that's not a huge difference in human waiting terms--unless your daily
> job entails searching mail files/folders all day long.  This is on a lightly
> loaded server.  I'd like to see data for heavily loaded mbox and maildir servers.

I would love to switch to maildir. I use clamav and it has the capability
of quarantining a file which test positive for malware. With mbox this
would mean quarantining an entire mailbox. Definitely not desirable.
With maildir only the message in question would be effected. 

Bob Holtzman
GPG key ID = 8D549279
If you think you're getting free lunch
check the price of the beer.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: