| 1 |
On Thursday 11 August 2005 16:09, A. Khattri wrote: |
| 2 |
> As I mentioned, some accounts have hundreds of Mb of messages and a few |
| 3 |
> have > 1Gb of email in them... |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
That actually doesn't say anything about the number of messages though ;) |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> Of course, I know, good performance begins with good hardware. Our servers |
| 8 |
> all use SCSI disks (U160 or better), some are RAIDed, some not. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Indeed - this is why you can't really compare your experience with the once I |
| 11 |
posted. He may well have been using rubbish hardware - but even if he wasn't, |
| 12 |
the case remains this shows a vast improvement from cyrus over courier using |
| 13 |
the same hardware. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> You could do something similar by NFS mounting maildirs across a cluster. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
You can create multiple frontends with this - but you'll still have one NFS |
| 18 |
server, or perhaps multiple NFS servers. You would have to create the logic |
| 19 |
and system that allowed the frontend IMAP/POP3 server to select the correct |
| 20 |
backend. Also, due to the fact that cyrus keeps advanced indexes, cyrus |
| 21 |
can't operate over an NFS share. Courier doens't provide an 'out of the box' |
| 22 |
method for creating a two-tiered scalable IMAP cluster... as far as I know. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I've seen this argument many times, on a mailing list I'm on the argument... |
| 25 |
sorry, 'discussion' often occours, and it's nearly always courier vs cyrus, |
| 26 |
and in this list community cyrus usually comes up top. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
One day I think I'll setup a test system, and actaully run some benchmarks to |
| 29 |
settle the dispute once and for all ;) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Ian P. Christian ~ http://pookey.co.uk |
Archives