[Dovecot] Best small server config
Hi,
Busy with dovecot on a linux server with not very much RAM in it (512 MB max total).
On this server dovecot will only handle about 12 users, with never more than 3 IMAP webmail users at a time, and a maximum of 2 POP3 users at a time using it.
I'm going all secure later on, but first I would like your opinion on what configuration best to use with, say, max 5 users busy at one time, and have it use as little RAM and CPU as possible. (Same machine is also running httpd, squirrelmail, php5, postfix, clamd, clamsmtpd, sshd.)
Here's my /etc/dovecot.conf now: # protocols = imap pop3 imap_listen = * pop3_listen = my.servers.ip.address (hidden for this list) ssl_cert_file = /etc/ssl/certs/imapd.pem ssl_key_file = /etc/ssl/private/imapd.pem ssl_parameters_file = /var/run/dovecot/ssl-parameters.dat ssl_parameters_regenerate = 320 login_dir = /var/run/dovecot-login login = imap login = pop3 default_mail_env = maildir:/home/%u/Maildir mailbox_idle_check_interval = 40 mail_full_filesystem_access = yes login_user = dovecot
login_process_size = 64 login_process_per_connection = no login_processes_count = 4 login_max_processes_count = 4 login_max_logging_users = 5
max_mail_processes = 140
imap_process_size = 192 pop3_process_size = 64
first_valid_uid = 500 last_valid_uid = 520
mail_cache_fields = MessagePart
mbox_locks = fcntl mbox_read_dotlock = no mbox_lock_timeout = 380
auth = default auth_mechanisms = plain auth_userdb = passwd auth_passdb = pam auth_process_size = 64 auth_user = root #
Any insight or advice welcomed!
Ben de G.
On 1/26/07, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
So, you're using 0.99.x version. I'd suggest upgrading to 1.0rc. It'll probably fix your POP3 timezone problem too.
What does that have to do with anything I'm bringing forward in this message? Is a newer version better for use on a small server?
B
- wrote:
On 1/26/07, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
So, you're using 0.99.x version. I'd suggest upgrading to 1.0rc. It'll probably fix your POP3 timezone problem too.
What does that have to do with anything I'm bringing forward in this message? Is a newer version better for use on a small server?
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's
- if not the latest one.
--
Best regards,
Charles
What about the known practice of not using any RC-s on a production servers ? I had problems migrating from 0.99 to 1.0rc8 and still not sure it was worth it. I will definitely upgrade after 1.0 release, but am sure there will be so many differences, that it will be another pain in the neck....
FiL
Charles Marcus wrote:
- wrote:
On 1/26/07, Timo Sirainen tss@iki.fi wrote:
So, you're using 0.99.x version. I'd suggest upgrading to 1.0rc. It'll probably fix your POP3 timezone problem too.
What does that have to do with anything I'm bringing forward in this message? Is a newer version better for use on a small server?
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's - if not the latest one.
FiL @ Kpoxa wrote:
What about the known practice of not using any RC-s on a production servers ?
You're kidding, right? What do you think '0.99.x' was, a stable/release version?
I had problems migrating from 0.99 to 1.0rc8 and still not sure it was worth it.
Well - did you post your problems here? Did you carefully go over the release notes? There definitely were a lot of changes, so if you didn't go over the upgrade notes carefully, it's not surprising that you had problems...
I will definitely upgrade after 1.0 release, but am sure there will be so many differences, that it will be another pain in the neck....
Nah - I'm sure Timo won't let any more large changes into the current rc version (19) before it goes gold.
Strongly suggest you upgrade... but be sure and read the upgrade notes first, as always...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 1/26/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
- wrote:
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's
- if not the latest one.
What a useless bunch of answers here. I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does that matter regarding my questions, even? So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine piece of work! This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those. Who knows, I might have left them in just to annoy you idiots!
B
Schrijf dan maar uit van de list en neem nog een stukje marsepein. Dit gezeur hebben we niets aan.
EJ
-----Original Message----- From: dovecot-bounces@dovecot.org [mailto:dovecot-bounces@dovecot.org] On Behalf Of - Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:35 PM To: Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Best small server config
On 1/26/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
- wrote:
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's
- if not the latest one.
What a useless bunch of answers here. I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does that matter regarding my questions, even? So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine piece of work! This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those. Who knows, I might have left them in just to annoy you idiots!
B
On 1/26/07, Egbert Jan egbert@vandenbussche.nl wrote:
Schrijf dan maar uit van de list en neem nog een stukje marsepein. Dit gezeur hebben we niets aan.
De schuld daarvan moet je zoeken bij de anderen, en dat weet je best. Ik stel hier een hele nette vraag. In plaats van antwoorden of constructieve bijdragen zie ik enkel wedervragen en accusaties.
Geval wil trouwens dat ik INDERDAAD een oude dovecot.conf heb ge-rsynced van een andere server waar ik het al op draaide. Met een nog oudere versie dan 0.99 trouwens. En zonder die pop3 timezone bug. Op deze CentOS server draait al een 1.* van dovecot. Ga daar maar aan staan. Nu jullie weer met je onzin.
Ben
On 27.1.2007, at 0.34, - wrote:
I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does
that matter regarding my questions, even?
The answer to your question is pretty much that: Dovecot is designed
to run with as little memory and CPU as possible (but not at the cost
of disk I/O), and there really aren't any settings that you can tune
to make it use any more or any less memory. Pretty much the only
setting I can think of is login_processes_count, since it directly
affects how many extra login processes it's keeping around.
So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine
piece of work!
Disregards? No, it gives an error at startup.
This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf
entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of
old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those. Who knows, I might have left them in just to annoy you idiots!
You wouldn't even be able to start a newer Dovecot version with that
config, so you must be running 0.99.x version.
Dovecot 0.99.x should really have been called v0.1, and there's no
good reason to use 0.99.x config file as a starting point when
upgrading to 1.0rc.
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's
- if not the latest one.
What a useless bunch of answers here.
Or maybe the problem lies with the one interpreting the answers...
I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does that matter regarding my questions, even? So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine piece of work!
There were some MAJOR changes between 0.99 and the 1.0 version - so what, do you expect Timo to keep around a bunch of old, outdated settings just to save you the trouble of doing a little reading before upgrading?
This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those.
LOL! Since when is it the job of the SOFTWARE to manage your .conf files? I do believe that you are a troll...
Who knows, I might have left them in just to annoy you idiots!
Yep... troll...
--
Best regards,
Charles
I hope you feel really good now :-) Just go away and stop using Dovecot, take Courier, Cyrus-IMAP, UW-IMAP or some other stable IMAP server. We all "idiots" just appreciate all the work what Timo have done.
You have not mentioned the version what are you using? Ok and have you mentioned which distro or which system are you using? :-)
See you all trolls
Láďa-----Original Message----- From: dovecot-bounces@dovecot.org [mailto:dovecot-bounces@dovecot.org] On Behalf Of - Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 11:35 PM To: Dovecot Mailing List Subject: Re: [Dovecot] Best small server config
On 1/26/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
- wrote:
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's
- if not the latest one.
What a useless bunch of answers here. I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does that matter regarding my questions, even? So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine piece of work! This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those. Who knows, I might have left them in just to annoy you idiots!
B
On Fri, Jan 26, 2007 at 11:34:44PM +0100, - wrote:
On 1/26/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
- wrote:
0.99 is VERY old, and is no longer supported. The changes are far too numerous to go into. Suffice it to say, if you want any kind of support with dovecot, you need to be at least using one of the more recent rc's
- if not the latest one.
What a useless bunch of answers here.
FWIW, I've had better support on this list than several name-less for-profit companies. I'm sure others have had similar experiences.
I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does that matter regarding my questions, even? So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine piece of work!
Just because you don't mention the version, that doesn't mean folks can't deduce the version based on the information that you did provide. Regarding compatibility, Timo has done a good job of providing backward compatibility where it makes sense, and error messages at the very least.
This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those.
I would not like software installations that touched my configuration files. Just give me a new version of the default configuration file and I'll review and update my configuration as needed.
Who knows, I might have left them in just to annoy you idiots!
I think your definition of "idiot" differs from the rest of ours. :-)
--
Steven F. Siirila Office: Lind Hall, Room 130B Internet Services E-mail: sfs@umn.edu Office of Information Technology Voice: (612) 626-0244 University of Minnesota Fax: (612) 626-7593
Hello,
This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those.
This Timo - sounds quite sarcastic! I have no idea where people like you come from but it surely is not my world. I appreciate Timo's work. I do not pay him and yet I can use Dovecto. It is rock solid (at least for me), very fast and light on resources.
Apart from that every 3rd email on this list comes from Timo so I wonder how he manages to find time for Dovecot, supporting users and doing other things. And surely this community here is very helpful, provided that you want to be helped which is not true.
Go and pay someone big bucks for things like exchange. I am sure you will be pleased, won't you?
-- Zbigniew Szalbot
On Saturday January 27, 2007 at 12:54:03 (PM) Zbigniew Szalbot wrote:
This Timo - sounds quite sarcastic!
Are you sure that is the word you would use to describe him?
Main Entry: sar·cas·tic Pronunciation: sär-'kas-tik Function: adjective 1 : having the character of sarcasm <sarcastic criticism> 2 : given to the use of sarcasm : CAUSTIC <a sarcastic critic>
- sar·cas·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb synonyms SARCASTIC, SATIRIC, IRONIC, SARDONIC mean marked by bitterness and a power or will to cut or sting. SARCASTIC implies an intentional inflicting of pain by deriding, taunting, or ridiculing <a critic known for his sarcastic remarks>. SATIRIC implies that the intent of the ridiculing is censure and reprobation <a satiric look at contemporary society>. IRONIC implies an attempt to be amusing or provocative by saying usually the opposite of what is meant <made the ironic observation that the government could always be trusted>. SARDONIC implies scorn, mockery, or derision that is manifested by either verbal or facial expression <surveyed the scene with a sardonic smile>.
-- Gerard
For GOOGLE (L)Users:
"RAM Disk" is not an installation procedure.
This 'Ben' guys was a toll, nothing more - don't waste any more bandwidth on him...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On 1/27/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
This 'Ben' guys was a toll, nothing more - don't waste any more bandwidth on him...
I'm highly disappointed in dovecot, since it seems 'support' is more of a phantom than an option with you people. I have not counted ONE decent reply, not ONE comment on using dovecot on a small server with the amount of users I mentioned. It's all nagging on and on about things that shouldn't even matter. So I'm using an old conf file, is that so strange? I used rsync and migrated from an older server.
You're just disappointed I did not reply to your slanderous (useless) comments, and then all you can do is blame your failure to .
Best regards,
Stupid hypocrit.
I think that pointing out that you're using an old configuration file is a valid first support step, Mr Hyphen.
I use Dovecot 1.0 beta 8 in conjunction with Exim and Vexim (vexim.org), PostgreSQL, SpamAssassin (which I need to spend some more time on) and ClamAV, it took a few hours to configure (mostly a few SQL statement alterations to handle the vexim database configuration) and all was good. Possibly you could look at this option, because it is very low maintainance and ideal for managing many users on varying domains. There's several guides online too.
I'm waiting for the betas to finish before upgrading dovecot again (I'm glad that such care is being taken to ensure it works reliably for all concerned users).
Graham
- wrote:
On 1/27/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
This 'Ben' guys was a toll, nothing more - don't waste any more bandwidth on him...
I'm highly disappointed in dovecot, since it seems 'support' is more of a phantom than an option with you people. I have not counted ONE decent reply, not ONE comment on using dovecot on a small server with the amount of users I mentioned. It's all nagging on and on about things that shouldn't even matter. So I'm using an old conf file, is that so strange? I used rsync and migrated from an older server.
You're just disappointed I did not reply to your slanderous (useless) comments, and then all you can do is blame your failure to .
Best regards,
Stupid hypocrit.
* On 29/01/07 13:07 +0000, Graham Briggs wrote:
| I think that pointing out that you're using an old configuration file is
| a valid first support step, Mr Hyphen.
|
| I use Dovecot 1.0 beta 8 in conjunction with Exim and Vexim (vexim.org),
| PostgreSQL, SpamAssassin (which I need to spend some more time on) and
| ClamAV, it took a few hours to configure (mostly a few SQL statement
| alterations to handle the vexim database configuration) and all was
| good. Possibly you could look at this option, because it is very low
| maintainance and ideal for managing many users on varying domains.
| There's several guides online too.
Seconded! I use MySQL with same setup though.... at several locations,
with average 100 users, which basically should be what Mr. Hyphen is
looking for.
Just to be fair on him again, he can find my configs at the following
location: http://ns2.wananchi.com/wash/dovecot/
I use dovecot-1.0rc19 ( I always use the latest for testing reasons).
| >Stupid hypocrit.
My Hyphen, please note that noone on this list owes you anything!
-Wash
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
DISCLAIMER: See http://www.wananchi.com/bms/terms.php
--
+======================================================================+
|\ _,,,---,,_ | Odhiambo Washington
- wrote:
On 1/27/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
This 'Ben' guys was a toll, nothing more - don't waste any more bandwidth on him...
I'm highly disappointed in dovecot, since it seems 'support' is more of a phantom than an option with you people. I have not counted ONE decent reply, not ONE comment on using dovecot on a small server with the amount of users I mentioned. It's all nagging on and on about things that shouldn't even matter. So I'm using an old conf file, is that so strange? I used rsync and migrated from an older server.
It's simple mate. If requesting support provide the following:
- Version of Dovecot you are using.
- Relevant configuration details
- OS and platform you are running on.
- Any potential log entries or other issues you are having.
Net result? Support.
Provide those details and I'll be happy to help you troubleshoot your problem.
I also recommend reading http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html. Seems to work for most lists I am on.
Without rancor I'd also recommend that you don't ever use an old configuration file for ANY application without reviewing it carefully in light of your environment, the current version of the application you are using, and your requirements.
Regards
James Turnbull
-- James Turnbull james@lovedthanlost.net
Author of Pro Nagios 2.0 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590596099/)
Hardening Linux (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1590594444/)
PGP Key (http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x0C42DF40)
You're just disappointed I did not reply to your slanderous (useless) comments
Slanderous?? What on earth are you talking about? Timo tried to HELP you like knowing that you aren't going to get much help with the 0.99.x
- as did I (although I'm nt much help with real problems, obvious things
series is an easy one)...
Stupid hypocrit.
It is this very attitude that got you labeled a troll.
You came on the list, asked a couple of questions, but didn't provide much in the way of specifics generally considered necessary to assist you in troubleshooting your problem - ie, platform (and no, 'linux' doesn't give anyone enough information), dovecot version, etc. No problem, no one is perfect.
But when Timo did the only thing he could do - try to extrapolate what version you were using based on some ancient settings in your config file - and informed you that simply updating to the current version would most likely fix BOTH your problems, you came back with a bit of an attitude - not a lot, but a bit.
I simply answered your question-with-attitude in response to Timos reccommendation - that 0.99.x is *very* old *and* *unsupported* - meaning, it is a waste of Timo's time to try to help you troubleshoot problems with it since upgrading brings you so many benefits *and* most likely will fix your problems - and then you started insulting Timo, me and dovecot in general.
Maybe you were offended that Timo assumed you were running an old version when you weren't? That could have been handled quite easily - all you had to do was reply in a civil tone what version you were running, and Timo would have gladly helped you sort out the config file issues you obviously were having (assuming you are indeed running a recent version).
I have *never* seen Timo lose his patience with anyone on this list. If you notice, he hasn't even responded to your insults and attitude.
The funniest thing is - you *still* haven't told us what version you are running.
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 13:57 +0100, - wrote:
On 1/27/07, Charles Marcus CMarcus@media-brokers.com wrote:
This 'Ben' guys was a toll, nothing more - don't waste any more bandwidth on him...
I'm highly disappointed in dovecot, since it seems 'support' is more of a phantom than an option with you people. I have not counted ONE decent reply, not ONE comment on using dovecot on a small server with the amount of users I mentioned.
So what do you call this? http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-January/018984.html
It directly answers to your question: There aren't really any such options, because the best way for a small server to work is pretty much the same as a large server: minimize the resource usage.
I find it kind of weird that you seem to hate everyone involved with Dovecot, yet you're still using it.
Timo Sirainen schrieb:
So what do you call this? http://dovecot.org/list/dovecot/2007-January/018984.html
I think it has all been said. The only point that I would like to add is that to someone outside the dovecot community it *can* look a bit strange that the only "stable" version gets the comment "old and unsupported" while it is recommended to install a version officially labeled "beta" or "rc". This has been done here with great success - I am using the 1.0rc on several production systems - but this - and only this!! - point is something I can understand. I cannot follow any criticism about bad support on this list; and even if it would be true we all have to remember that this is not a product with a support contract that has been paid for; although I often find that free software has better and faster support than most paid products ....
Yours, Jakob Curdes
FWIW, I've had better support on this list than several name-less for-profit companies. I'm sure others have had similar experiences.
A hearty seconded to that... although there have been a few occasions when Timo sort of disappears for a while, he always says so and why - and he even does still answer if there is a serious problem and the reporter provides decent proof of it in their post.
I have not even mentioned what version I'm using. And what does that matter regarding my questions, even? So this software totally disgregards ALL former conf entries when turning from 0.99 to 1.00 ? Some fine piece of work!
Just because you don't mention the version, that doesn't mean folks can't deduce the version based on the information that you did provide.
Not only that - it is a given on any support list for every program I've ever used that you need to provide some essential information when asking for help, the version of the program you are running and the platform being two items that are a bare minimum in most cases.
Since you didn't bother to provide these details, what else can Timo or anyone else do but try to guess based on what you did provide?
Regarding compatibility, Timo has done a good job of providing backward compatibility where it makes sense, and error messages at the very least.
And he has also always documented changes that will break things in older versions. Anyone who attempts to upgrade a program without at *least* reading the release notes of every version prior to the version you are currently running is just rolling the dice, so when they get bit, they have no one to blame but themselves.
This Timo seems to have deducted the version I'm using from conf entries, which is very stupid itself, because if the conf has a couple of old entries it means dovecot is leaving shit behind from older versions and does not clean those.
Watch your mouth. No reason to pollute the list with profanity...
It isn't dovecots job to clean up your config files, thats your job. Or, possibly, the job of the package maintainer for your distro, but personally, I would not use a package that tried to make decisions liek this for me.
I would not like software installations that touched my configuration files.
Amen... I really like the way Gentoo does it... shows you a diff of the new and old, and you can step through each change and accept it or not. Usually I do it by hand, but it works well when I have gotten lazy... :)
Just give me a new version of the default configuration file and I'll review and update my configuration as needed.
Heh... exactly...
--
Best regards,
Charles
participants (13)
-
-
-
Charles Marcus
-
Egbert Jan
-
FiL ＠ Kpoxa
-
Gerard
-
Graham Briggs
-
Jakob Curdes
-
James Turnbull
-
Láďa
-
Odhiambo WASHINGTON
-
Steven F Siirila
-
Timo Sirainen
-
Zbigniew Szalbot