[Dovecot] Upgrading Dovecot on CentOS 4 from 0.99 to 1.x
(sorry for my previous message, I sent it by mistake before finishing it)
Hello,
We have a production mail server running dovecot 0.99 (dovecot-0.99.14-1.rf). We are getting several errors corrected in dovecot 1.x versions:
corrupted inboxes (garbage at beggining of mbox files),
corrupted index files (Error: Corrupted file index /home/jsmith/.imap/Drafts/.imap.index: Sequence 6 not found from binary tree (6 msgs says header)),
others (Error: fcntl() failed with mbox file /var/mail/jsmith: Resource deadlock avoided), etc.
I'm planning to upgrade using the instructions found at dovecot's wiki. On http://atrpms.net/dist/el4/ it is offered in 3 different versions:
- dovecot 1..0.15-1_73.el4
- dovecot 1.1.19-1_96.el4
- dovecot 1.2.5-0_100.el4
I have a separated test system, where I'll test upgrading from 0.99 to final selected version, to discover any possible gotchas found while upgrading.
Two questions:
Which version is the recommended to upgrade? I'd like stability and as little problems as possible over anything else, as we have a simple set up.
What is the preferred upgrade method? straight upgrade? (099 -> rpm -Fvh dovecot-1.2 ? Or upgrading one release at a time? (0.99 > 1.0 > 1.1 ...)
Thank you in advance for any recommendation.
Regards, Josep
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
This transmission is intended for the use of the entity or individual to which or whom it is addressed. The transmission or any documents accompanying the transmission may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the transmission or the documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential transmission in error, please destroy it and any accompanying documents and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 09:11 -0400, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
1.1.19 is the guaranteed-working version. I think v1.2.5 is fine too if you don't use quota (due to a stupid bug that causes it to crash).
Since you're using mbox, I think 0.99 -> 1.1 or 1.2 is fine.
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 11:25 -0700, Eric Shubert wrote:
Yes, but check http://wiki.dovecot.org/Upgrading/1.1 and http://wiki.dovecot.org/Upgrading/1.2 anyway.
Hi Timo,
Thank you for answering.
On Monday 28 September 2009 02:22:06 pm Timo Sirainen wrote:
Good to know. I'll go 1.1.19 route, then.
Since you're using mbox, I think 0.99 -> 1.1 or 1.2 is fine.
Nice. Thanks.
And yet another question on the upgrade subject.
While going through the list archive, I've seen that there can be some potential messy situations if message IDs (IMAP UIDs) change.
Will the upgrade from 0.99 to 1.1.19 change IMAP UIDs? Will this force me to remove the .imap folder from each user home directory?
If this is going to happen, I'd like to know in advance, in order to send an informative email out, as my power users (read: VPs) will have their Blackberries re-downloading all their messages.
Thank you in advance, Josep
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve - IT Department
This transmission is intended for the use of the entity or individual to which or whom it is addressed. The transmission or any documents accompanying the transmission may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the transmission or the documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this confidential transmission in error, please destroy it and any accompanying documents and notify the sender immediately. Thank you.
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 15:05 -0400, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
Will the upgrade from 0.99 to 1.1.19 change IMAP UIDs? Will this force me to remove the .imap folder from each user home directory?
The IMAP UIDs should be stored in X-UID: headers in mbox files in both 0.99 and 1.1. So in theory it should work.. In practice you might find that for whatever reason some mboxes might have some minor corruption or something else that causes v1.1 to reassign new UIDs..
Do you also have POP3 users? Make sure pop3_uidl_format is set to the same as in v0.99, which is %v.%u I think.
participants (3)
-
Eric Shubert
-
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve
-
Timo Sirainen