[Dovecot] dovecot evaluation on a 30 gb mailbox
patrickdk at patrickdk.com
Fri Jun 25 05:01:30 EEST 2010
In my measurements I did years ago, I found imapproxy to give a small
improvement compared to 0.9x dovecot, I believe that went away in 1.x
I did use imapproxy on a few systems. But over time I finally gave up
on it, mainly cause it kept crashing, causing webmail to stop working,
and I didn't feel adding a watcher or looping it to keep it running to
be the correct fix. And given the very small improvment it gave, felt
it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with.
Quoting Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi>:
> On 25.6.2010, at 1.37, Noel Butler wrote:
>> If its running on a SOHO, you probably wouldn't even be able to measure
>> the difference, but for an ISP/Telco or large institution, you will
>> certainly notice the reduction in I/O (or loads on your database
>> server). This goes for any imap webmail software, not just SM.
> But with auth cache enabled, there is no extra database load. The
> index files are also most likely in OS's cache (assuming local
> disk), so no extra disk I/O to read them either. I'm sure it's a bit
> more extra CPU usage, but I'm not all that certain that it's really
> that a big of a difference with Dovecot.
More information about the dovecot