<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">Am 21.06.2019 um 00:13 schrieb @lbutlr via dovecot <<a href="mailto:dovecot@dovecot.org" class="">dovecot@dovecot.org</a>>:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">On 20 Jun 2019, at 07:45, Götz Reinicke via dovecot <<a href="mailto:dovecot@dovecot.org" class="">dovecot@dovecot.org</a>> wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Yes, we are on VMs. Of course I could extend the resources for the dovecot VM (more CPU, more RAM) but as mentioned having separate VMs/systems is in some situations the preferred way.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">Yep, that totally makes sense. I am Old™ and still think of “server” as a physical box sitting in a rack.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><style type="text/css" class="">
@media only screen and (max-width:480px){
.container {
padding: 5px !important;
}
img {
height: auto !important;
max-width: 100% !important;
}
}
</style><div class="">For me, it is often a „it depends, if …“. Take my current setup. I want to add Solr to a up-and-running dovecot system. In my VM I would have to add CPU and RAM, which I just can when rebooting the dovecot server. This is a (little) downtime, but is is a downtime.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So adding a Solr VM is currently the better choice regarding the uptime.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for your feedback and regards . Götz</div><br class=""><br class=""><style type="text/css" class="">
@media only screen and (max-width:480px){
.container {
padding: 5px !important;
}
img {
height: auto !important;
max-width: 100% !important;
}
}
</style></body></html>