On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 03:34:38PM EDT, Thomas Glanzmann wrote: > > 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? I think you've trimmed too much context :-( > > > 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. and what size? > > It shouldn't take 25 seconds to open a 90MB mbox. > > That's why the I wrote the patch in the first place. :-) Nicolas was able to open a 300MB mbox in the same time. Your system can't be _that_ slow by comparison. . . ...and what patch are you talking about? > > 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. I'm not asking you to put everything there, just your mail - or at least the headers of all your emails. (You can still store the bodies of the mails as regular files, if you want. You'll still gain tons of performance gains by using a specialized tool for the job, plus network-safe locking, of course.) > > How exactly do you propose doing that? > > stability over cutting-edge performance. I don't remember what "that" is anymore, and you've nuked too much context again :-( - Dave -- Tip of the day: context is background information, so it's better to have a bit too much than a bit too little.
Attachment:
pgpVKzFwDjG88.pgp
Description: PGP signature