flat mailboxes performances for around 1500 entries

[Patrice]

no murder here
I will try flat files and if no troubles , I will keep it.

thanks Stephen


Stephen L. Ulmer wrote:

>On 1 Sep 2005, dgm+ at pitt.edu said:
>  
>
>>Patrice wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Does someone know if the flat format type  for my
>>>/var/imap/mailboxes.db is good enough for only 1500 mailboxes ?
>>>      
>>>
>>We use flat in our setup.  We have about 65000 users with 264265
>>mailboxes.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>We were using flat for about that size (65000, though we used it at
>1500 too).
>
>  
>
>>>or it will impact performances ?
>>>      
>>>
>>It works fine for us.  Whether other formats would perform better, I
>>can't say.  We never benchmarked.  Flat format isn't as bad as you
>>would initially think, since cyrus mmap()s the file anyway.  The big
>>hit you take is that each update requires the entire file to be
>>re-written.
>>    
>>
>
>Somewhere way back we switched to skiplist, and we are EXTREMELY happy
>with it. I'm confident that we have enough activity now that just the
>mailbox.db updates from folder creates would cause significant delays
>while the file was re-written.
>
>I don't know if Dave is running a murder, but it seems to us that
>mailboxes.db updates on the proxies just work better with skiplist.
>
>Good luck,
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>----
>Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
>Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http://cyruswiki.andrew.cmu.edu
>List Archives/Info: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus/mailing-list.html
>