Hi,
Just giving my own experience:
I am using dovecot 2.0.9 (well, now 2.0.10 since today) in production without problems
Sdbox is using far too much I/O on a busy server, I had to switch to mdbox
Mdbox is running well so far, and resources (IO or CPU) are not an issue anymore.
Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy
Converting from sdbox to mdbox has been a complete nightmare. I have never managed to make it completely, finally made it through imap protocol between 2 instance of dovecot. You better choose before sd or md, but not try to convert between the 2
my 2 cents
JM
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:19:21 +0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
- What is the advantage to using a single sdbox file for each user?
On 4.3.2011, at 23.05, Douglas Mortensen wrote:
I guess to get more specific, some of the questions I have regarding dbox vs. mdbox are: 1. What is the advantage to using multiple files? mdbox in theory uses less disk I/O for "normal users".
It's simpler. More difficult to get corrupted. Also if in future there exists a filesystem that supports smaller files better, it's then faster than mdbox. Probably unlikely that it will happen anytime soon. 3.
e="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">4. Are there real-world benchmarks showing measurable differences between maildir, sdbox, mdbox? torage, so
an of course be anything. the before/after numbers can't be compared. I'm very interested in knowing myself too.
e type="cite" style="padding-left:5px; border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">5. Are sdbox & mdbox equally stable to Maildir? Are they recommended for production systems? sdbox is so simple that I doubt anyone will find any kind of corruption bugs. mdbox is more complex, but people are using
dles already corrupted files, v2.0.10 had several fixes related to that.