Re: unable to open mailbox
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 08:12:30PM -0700, RobertHoltzman wrote:
> 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.
>
Another benefit of maildir is if you use a backup program that does file
pooling (like BackupPC). Anytime an mbox changes, that's a new file to
backup (and usually a big one). With maildir, only the new messages
have to be backed up.
-Rob
Reply to: