131
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 May 2025
131 points (100.0% liked)
Selfhosted
46672 readers
705 users here now
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I had to give up on stalwart because on 4gb ram dual core with mechanical HDD the performance for a single account domain was abysmal and after some support back and forth there was no solution.
On the same hardware the good old postfix+dovecot just handles perfectly with 90% spare capacity
Sorry guys, maybe it was time to optimize it a bit before adding more features?
It's a 0.x release. It makes sense building the intended features first before optimizing heavily. There's no point having an optimized data structure that then falls flat once you need to add new features that brings new requirements to the data structure.
Once they label it 1.x (i.e. feature complete and production ready) I would expect it to be optimized. If it isn't, criticism is warranted.
Stalwart probably aims a bigger infra than mine, i think that is the point.
It aims at both, otherwise it wouldn't ship with sqlite and rocksdb. Stalwarts default is clearly for single node setups and expanding it to clustering takes further steps. So while it supports large scale deployments, it should not be limited to it.
Are we sure they are using semantic versioning?
We can ask, but the indicators are there:
Mm, interesting.
That's probably because you were using RocksDB as a backend, which does not work well on mechanical HDDs. Try using PostgreSQL instead.
I did, we discussed this on an issue and a github discussion. It was still too slow and saturating my low spec machine, no matter which backends I tried to use.
Probably my hardware is just too underpowered.
They have improved performance in this release, although judging from their release notes it is targeting larger infra, so I don't believe these improvements would benefit your setup. Still, good news for software this new.
@warmaster @Shimitar Their licencing suggests they are targetting larger infra.
Yeah, that's what I said in the post you're replying to. Is this a case of weird cross-platform federation?
@warmaster I was just agreeding and suggesting that their monetisation strategy is licencing hence the reason for improvements for Enterprise clusters rather than focusing on Self Hosting is the money.
Ahora entiendo tu comentario, gracias por clarificar.