On 06-06-2006 08:19:35 -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
With MySQL for storage you can use replicated databases and multiple machines running dovecot IMAP. The "filesystem" don't have the capabilities that MySQL has.
RAID? Distributed RAID? (i.e. infiniband?) Also, how much does a centralised approach such as MySQL's replication hierarchy help? IMAP is a lot about writing the data (marking as read, flagging, removing, adding, moving, etc.) so the master server will have to do all the work. How much "delay" do you allow on the slaves? Is there any use for a read-only slave in an IMAP world other than a mailing list archive or fallback? rsync can do wonders for those too. You would need at least a PostgreSQL multi-master structure to for instance manage geographically bound data... but do users share mailboxes over the world and use only a certain part (folder?) of it on a regular base?
The idea is tempting, because of the possible reuse and benefit from an area that has had serious research since the 1950's. However, I think it is at this stage really questionable whether the overhead of a true DBMS as storage backend is justifyable by any real benefits gained. Unfortunately.
Hehe, my 2 completely off-topic euro cents.
-- Fabian Groffen MonetDB developer - http://monetdb.cwi.nl/