sent you an email.
Oh and my filestore code is much more interesting. Not that IMAP isn't important...but the filestore stuff is a massive improvement over hypersonic which means we're getting a lot closer to all GUI/webstart production-able installs.
The filestore stuff is *very* interesting on a number of fronts. Most fascinating of all (in my mind) is an idea I've been thinking about lately to store JBMS back-end data onto Amazon's S3 service (www.amazon.com/aws) via a filesystem interface like JungleDisk or something similar. It would be a cool way to host a JBMS service on a large scale without having to worry about huge amounts of back-end storage.
The catch is that AWS is not POSIX compliant (aws can't guarantee certain things that a normal filesystem would). I'd be curious to do some testing on this, though....also to hear thoughts about whether such a setup could even work or not.
Got your mail and sent you a response.
Do you have any idea how fast the filestore code [could be]/[will be] as compared to a Postgres dbase-backed mail store, especially in a large scale implementation?
For larger email providers, it seems like a SAN would be employed (whether with a filestore or a db store). Does the database add anything beneficial in such a scenario (for typical mail operations). Or, would it make sense to employ some kind of hybrid (mail messages on the FileSys, Calendaring/User data in the DB)?
At the moment mailboxes are in the DB and the filestore keeps body parts only. I haven't done any benchmarking vs Postgresql specifically but for single server installations I suspect it will exceed postgresql performance if only because it doesn't copy the mail parts around in memory like PG.
(note that this is configurable, we intend to continue to support DB stores too)