Re: mutt - slow mbox'es
* On 2004.07.21, in <20040721124806.GK27499@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
* "Thomas Glanzmann" <sithglan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Domas,
>
> > So, can anyone suggest my how to cache headers (is there some patch
> > avalaible?) by using mbox ?
>
> no, there is not patch available. And even if you would wrote such a
> patch it would speedup the scan only by approximately 2.5 seconds in
> 'best case' scenario. I once benchmarked this. The problem is that mutt
> has to scan the mbox anyway to detect ne eMails etc.
An mbox cache could be done. This isn't really accurate.
I think that I've seen an mbox caching patch somewhere, but I'm not
sure. I personally don't mind the performance I experience, so I haven't
paid a lot of attention. But I couldn't say where it is or who wrote it,
if it even exists.
I've thought about working on one just to be contrarian, but I have
other things going on right now.
> So don't try to fight symptoms but solve the problem, which means move to
> maildir....
> Use a OS with better IO performance. Buy a bigger processor. Or do the
> only reasonable thing and switch to maildir.
That's unfair. Mbox is not in itself a problem. Maildir is better in
some cases, mbox in others. There is no one true mailbox format. Please
don't be religious about it. To do so is to construct someone else's
reality.
--
-D. dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxx NSIT::ENSS