MBOX-Line: From witold.krecicki at firma.o2.pl  Fri Jun 11 05:37:03 2010
To: imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
From: Witold =?utf-8?q?Kr=C4=99cicki?= <witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
Date: Fri Jun  8 12:34:43 2018
Subject: [Imap-protocol] IMAP MOVE extension
In-Reply-To: <20131949-0279-4455-8FB9-99E4030A6904@iki.fi>
References: <201006110854.37969.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<201006111115.19660.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>
	<20131949-0279-4455-8FB9-99E4030A6904@iki.fi>
Message-ID: <201006111437.03613.witold.krecicki@firma.o2.pl>

On Friday 11 of June 2010 14:09:55 Timo Sirainen wrote:
> On 11.6.2010, at 10.15, Witold Kr?cicki wrote:
> > On Friday 11 of June 2010 10:59:31 Dave Cridland wrote:
> >> Depending on your server design, this is either very easy, or else
> >> very hard - of course, since it's optional, it'd seem likely that
> >> where it's hard it'd not be supported.
> > 
> > That's sure, that's why it's an option.  In most popular IMAP servers
> > that use Maildirs this is a simple 'move' operation, with I/O cost of
> > next to nothing (assuming that the whole user account is on one FS of
> > course).
> 
> I once thought about implementing MOVE operation to Dovecot to improve
> speed. But then I realized that if client sends STORE \Deleted and EXPUNGE
> in same IP packet, I can just optimize away the rename()s caused by STORE.
> The remaining link()+unlink() should then be about as fast as rename().
> The only exception is OSX with HFS filesystem, where hard links are really
> inefficient.
And how hard it would be to really implement it in Dovecot? 

-- 
Witold Kr?cicki

Grupa o2 Sp??ka z o.o., ul. Jutrzenki 177, 02-231 Warszawa,
KRS 0000140518, S?d Rejonowy dla m.st. Warszawy, 
Kapita? zak?adowy 377.298,00 z?., NIP 521-31-11-513

