Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

SQLIte deployment? #307

Open
g40 opened this issue Jan 2, 2025 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #311
Open

SQLIte deployment? #307

g40 opened this issue Jan 2, 2025 · 3 comments · May be fixed by #311

Comments

@g40
Copy link

g40 commented Jan 2, 2025

Can anyone clarify please?

"By default, the image will use a local SQLite database for storing user account metadata. It'll be created inside the container directory /var/roundcube/db. In order to persist the database, a volume mount should be added to this path. Please note that this option should not be used for production environments."

(SQLite) should not be used for production environments

It would be good to know why SQLite is not recommended for production deployment.

@pabzm
Copy link
Member

pabzm commented Jan 3, 2025

@thomascube That note essentially is present since the beginning of this repository (3cd4286). Can you recall the reasons for it? And/or do you still think that statement is correct and required?

(From my point of view, sqlite might not be suitable for bigger setups, but for smaller ones if might be fine in production, too. So I'd just remove the last sentence from that paragraph.)

@thomascube
Copy link
Member

sqlite might not be suitable for bigger setups, but for smaller ones if might be fine in production, too.

Indeed this was probably the reason for this sentence. Because sqlite ist file based, when multiple (PHP) processes (e.g. multiple users/sessions) want to access the database, locking may delay the access leading to bad performance.

Maybe we can just rephrase this accordingly.

@g40
Copy link
Author

g40 commented Jan 3, 2025

@thomascube: Yes, that seems much more appropriate

Thanks all.

@pabzm pabzm linked a pull request Jan 9, 2025 that will close this issue
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants