On 03/12/2011 09:35 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 02:20:04PM +0100, Simon Matter wrote: >>> I've built a new Cyrus-IMAPd server (hardware). It has two sets >>> of mirrored disks. The OS is on WD VelociRaptor 450GB drives. The >>> bulk IMAP data will be on WD Black RE-4 2TB drives. So far, I think >>> I want to use ZFS for both mirrors. >>> >>> I wanted to see what the list recommends for the migration. >>> >>> The current server is running FreeBSD 8.2, with cyrus-imapd-2.3.16 >>> on a RAID-5 setup on SCSI-UW with 15000RPM drives. We get about >>> 1.5 - 9MB/s at 80 - 100% busy according to "systat -vm 1" for most >>> of the day. >>> >>> The existing server has no metadata partition. On the new server, >>> I believe that I want to put the config directory and metadata >>> partition on the 46050GB drives and the message files on the 2TB drives. >>> >>> Can I configure the new server's imapd.conf to put data where I >>> want it, and simply use the cyrus replication to put the data in >>> the right place on the new server? In other words can the migration >>> split my data partition into data and metadata partitions without >>> my having to script up shuffling files around then reconfiguring >>> and restarting cyrus? >> >> I can't comment on this one. I've tried metadata partitions but never >> tried doing it online. > > Cyrus won't move them for you, and I don't think there is even a tool > to do it. Sorry. I used tools/migrate-metadata from the source tarball (2.3.16) to migrate an existing setup (same server) to using a metadata partition. As for setting up the slave with a metadata partition and then replicating from the old server to the new, I think that might work. Just set it up and replicate one user. That should indicate if it will work on not. > >>> Also, should I install Cyrus-IMAPd 2.3 or 2.4 on the new server? >>> I tend to be a late adopter. I'm wondering if 2.4 is generally >>> considered ready for a single server install in a multi-domain ISP >>> type environment. >> >> Personally I consider 2.4 as stable as 2.3. It has worked very well for us. > > I am biased here ;) I think 2.4 is a lot better, but not as > "battle tested". There are some known bugs I'm hoping to fix > with another 2.4 release very soon. > > Bron. > ---- > Cyrus Home Page: http://www.cyrusimap.org/ > List Archives/Info: http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/info-cyrus/ ---- Cyrus Home Page: http://www.cyrusimap.org/ List Archives/Info: http://lists.andrew.cmu.edu/pipermail/info-cyrus/
