* Derek Martin <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 09:04:10AM +0100, Nicolas Rachinsky wrote: > > time mutt -f=TMP -e "push <quit>" > > 3.899u 1.447s 0:14.93 35.6% 676+31507k 4828+0io 0pf+0w > > Also worth noting you're using high-end hardware. 500MB/15s = > 33MB/s. That's pretty fast. Are you using raid? Certain > configurations of raid will make reads quite fast, and writes > comparatively slow. And what about cache? Was the cache of the (HDD|fs) flushed in between tests? Etc... My desktop is a Nehemiah system (1 GHz) with a WD HDD, and since I use ext3 I've turned off the HDD cache completely. Ever since I use mutt (or mutt-ng ;-), mbox is the format of my choice, for various reasons; lots of mailinglists (20+), thus large mailboxes :-), and most of all, ease of backup. However, I've recently run some performance tests with XFS and I must say that I seriously consider using it on all my drives. I recommend the OP runs such tests of his own. May it even be for future use at first, setting up a fresh system is only a matter of time after all ;-) -- left blank, right bald
Attachment:
pgpd8iPBropZr.pgp
Description: PGP signature