Re: mutt - slow mbox'es
Hi again,
> Perhaps not surprisingly, the most performance improvement comes from
> fast disk bandwidth, and the second-most from buffers in RAM (i.e.,
> from a freakin' gigabyte of RAM!).
So a T3B and 4G of RAM isn't enough?
> > My PC at home opens a uncached maildir and mbox message
> > both in ~ 3 seconds.
> How many messages are we talking about, and what size box?
32thousand.
> It shouldn't take 25 seconds to open a 90MB mbox.
That's why the I wrote the patch in the first place. :-)
> I don't see what you have against it. It's a specialized tool for
> storing data and indexing it rapidly. It seems like the perfect
> "format" for a mailbox, if you ask me.
I thought the times where we put *everything* in mysql databases are
over.
> How exactly do you propose doing that?
stability over cutting-edge performance.
Sincerely,
Thomas