[Dovecot] dbox vs. mdbox
jom at grosjo.net
Sat Mar 5 04:14:00 EET 2011
Just giving my own experience:
* I am using dovecot 2.0.9
(well, now 2.0.10 since today) in production without problems
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
* Converting from Maildir to s/mdbox is easy
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
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 23:19:21
+0200, Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 4.3.2011, at 23.05, Douglas Mortensen
>> 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
> mdbox in theory uses less disk I/O for "normal users".
2. What is the advantage to using a single sdbox file for each user?
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.
an of course be anything.
> 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
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
already corrupted files, v2.0.10 had several fixes related to that.
More information about the dovecot