Re: mutt - slow mbox'es
* Thomas Glanzmann <sithglan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2004-07-25 11:26 +0200]:
> * David Yitzchak Cohen <lists+mutt_users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [040725 08:10]:
> > > (**) I didn't use them for archive boxes with relativly big mails, but
> > > for the other boxes are mboxes faster -- without cache -- and they need
> > > less
> > > diskspace -- even without a header cache. And very old boxes can be
> > > easily compressed.
>
> > I don't understand that ... I must be too tired :-(
>
> He basically said that Maildirs eat more diskspace and also mboxes where
> faster for small eMails without the header cache. And he uses mbox often
> to archive eMails, which are seldom read in these times. A nice benefit
> is, that you can just gzip a mbox and still can opening it using mutt,
> which you can't with maildir.
Yep. I don't think I could have explained it better. Thank you.
> My only arguemnt against is, that disk
> space is cheap this days.
Yes.
> > > With a page size of 16k, instead
> > > of the default 2k, mutt is a bit faster and the file is only 52MB big.
>
> > ...and now I _certainly_ wonder where the rest of the file went. . .
>
> Default blocksize is 2k. A usual header cache entry has about 1.2kbyte.
> If you use a bigger blocksize in the database you have less
> administrative overhead. More or less that way.
Ah, thanks.
Nicolas