[Dovecot] mbox slowness in dovecot-1.0-test61
Hi,
We're trying out Dovecot to see if it's a good replacement for UW-imapd. It seems to be very slow in opening an mbox file, even after it's been indexed. (I mean way slower than UW)
Here's some info on the system: Dovecot-1.0-test61 SuSE 8.1, Linux kernel 2.4 Using NFS to access mail.
I've tried turning off mmap, using dotlocking, using fcntl locking (lockd, etc. are running), mbox_dirty_syncs and mbox_very_dirty_syncs. Also tried putting the cache files on local disk.
Compile options where basically default.
I'm accessing it with pine, using several filters which tend to do SEARCH commands.
Has anyone come across this? Maybe I'm missing something obvious???
Thanks,
Todd Burroughs - Hostopia todd@hostopia.com
Todd Burroughs wrote:
We're trying out Dovecot to see if it's a good replacement for UW-imapd. It seems to be very slow in opening an mbox file, even after it's been indexed. (I mean way slower than UW)
In which point you see the slowdown? Just after login or after issuing some searches first?
For me test61 works very well with mboxes, but I'm not running it on NFS.
-- Tomi Hakala
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005, Tomi Hakala wrote:
Todd Burroughs wrote:
We're trying out Dovecot to see if it's a good replacement for UW-imapd. It seems to be very slow in opening an mbox file, even after it's been indexed. (I mean way slower than UW)
In which point you see the slowdown? Just after login or after issuing some searches first?
I ran a few more tests and it is with the searching. Turning all my filters off makes it really fast...
I did some manual tests and it looks like UW caches the headers, so that searches are fast, but it is slow to open the mailbox initially. With dovecot, all the searches take about the same amount of time, so it seems that it isn't caching headers.
I'll have to look into that, but I'm impressed otherwise.
Todd
participants (2)
-
Todd Burroughs
-
Tomi Hakala