Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Single-Copy Message storage ?

  1. #1
    tiger2000 is offline Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    296
    Rep Power
    7

    Default Single-Copy Message storage ?

    Dear All,

    Just hope to clarify this feature : Single-Copy Message storage :

    if someone sends an email with 10MB size to 1000 recipients in system, does it mean (by "Single-Copy Message Storage" definition) ZCS will only consume 10MB (or probably less than 20MB) size in file system?

    Is this correct?

  2. #2
    Klug's Avatar
    Klug is offline Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Beaucaire, France
    Posts
    2,320
    Rep Power
    13

    Default

    Yes, as long as all the users are on the same server.

  3. #3
    tiger2000 is offline Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Taiwan
    Posts
    296
    Rep Power
    7

    Default

    just did a test :

    1. create 300 accounts and assign all of them into a distribution list.

    2. send an email to such DL with size : 20MB , thus it should consume about 20MB x 300 = 6000 MB size in other email system.

    3. check the filesystem df result during email delivery:

    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519900 13617132 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519904 13617128 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519908 13617124 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519908 13617124 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519908 13617124 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519908 13617124 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5519908 13617124 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5524624 13612408 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5533736 13603296 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5540496 13596536 29% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5612420 13524612 30% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5669804 13467228 30% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5702168 13434864 30% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5754112 13382920 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5741920 13395112 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5760788 13376244 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5761320 13375712 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5761320 13375712 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5761320 13375712 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5761320 13375712 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5761320 13375712 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5781872 13355160 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5781872 13355160 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5781872 13355160 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5781872 13355160 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5781880 13355152 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5781880 13355152 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5789532 13347500 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5848040 13288992 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5888824 13248208 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5884696 13252336 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5889696 13247336 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5905248 13231784 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5905248 13231784 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5905248 13231784 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5905248 13231784 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5885260 13251772 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5822464 13314568 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5860996 13276036 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5866360 13270672 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5866360 13270672 31% /
    /dev/hda1 20161172 5866360 13270672 31% /

    looks like : it's consuming <300MB size in file system, although it's already much smaller than 6GB , it doesn't act as what the document says.

    is my result normal behavior ? or any advice ?

    Thanks.

  4. #4
    Rich Graves is offline Outstanding Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    719
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    du -skh index store redolog db

    store (the actual message) is deduped. You get one 24MB copy (with base64 overhead) there.

    redolog saves a copy for crash recovery... then either throws it away upon log switch on OSS edition, or archives it for NE point-in-time restores.

    index is not deduped, afaik. Each of those 300 new users would initialize their index. Even a mostly empty index has a minimum size. Send a second 20MB attachment to the same 300 users, and I'd expect a smaller increase, closer to 50MB (MIME overhead+redolog).

    I wouldn't expect db/data to grow appreciably, but the first message to a mailbox(group) might trigger something.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 'Couldn't access Yahoo! Zimbra Desktop server"
    By chirag1 in forum Error Reports
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 06-12-2011, 05:14 PM
  2. [SOLVED] Zimbra desktop slowed down the system
    By hvle in forum General Questions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 05:32 PM
  3. Emails bouncing with "Error Text: 401,'null'"
    By sholden in forum Zimbra Connector for Outlook
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-20-2008, 04:59 PM
  4. Single copy message storage & Mailman
    By stephenwilley in forum Administrators
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-17-2008, 09:28 AM
  5. single File per message problem
    By incarose in forum Developers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-16-2005, 05:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •