Kopano Search Storage size

  • Hello,

    I just migrated a clients mailsystem to Kopano (with subscription). After importing some big mailboxes the machine started having a heavy load for many hours (~2 days). The process which took so much power was /usr/bin/python3 /usr/sbin/kopano-search -F.

    After the kopano search deamon was finished creating the index, I wonder why there is so less space left on the machine. Another phenomenon is that the system load raises very fast (> 5.00) when users are connected (via IMAP and Outlook).

    The database is about 8 GBytes:

    root@mailserver:~# du -hs /var/lib/mysql/kopano/
    7,7G  /var/lib/mysql/kopano/

    The attachment directory is about 60 GBytes:

    root@mailserver:~# du -hs /var/lib/kopano/attachments/
    60G /var/lib/kopano/attachments/

    So I wonder why the search index is bigger than the database and the attachment folder together:

    root@mailserver:~# du -hs /var/lib/kopano/search/
    77G /var/lib/kopano/search/

    Here are some data for the installation:

    • Debian 9 64-Bit
    • Kopano 8.7.1 (Installation; Upgraded to 8.7.3)
    • Z-Push 2.5 (current version)
    • Migration was done using kopano-migration-pst command.
    • 4 Cores; 28 GBytes RAM, SSD-Storage

    On other client installations I don’t have these phenomena. The search index directory there is much smaller than the real data.

    So my questions are:

    • Is kopano-search ignoring the default setting index_attachments = no ?
    • Should I start a new indexing (remove directory while kopano-search is stopped)?
    • Many users use email encryption; so indexing must not be necessary?
    • Is it safe to disable kopano-search?

    Thank you!

  • Hi,
    this is a answer to myself or anyone who has the same problem.

    I solved the big storage issue by stopping kopano-search, deleting /var/lib/kopano/search/ and restarting kopano-search.

    Old size of search-cache was 77 GB, new size is 1,4 GB.

    The reason: I don’t know. Maybe a bug while importing in 8.7.1?


Log in to reply