Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-04-06 Thread Russell Coker
On Monday 28 February 2005 14:26, sean finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i came up with the number by totalling the mailbox sizes of a 3000 user mail system, and then dividing by the total number of messages in these mailboxes. this generated a number around 13k average message size. i had to

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-28 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2005-02-27 18:19:45, schrieb sean finney: can't help but chime in here :) On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote: Not every situation warrants using maildir, it uses a large number of inodes, is slow to scan (yes, mbox isn't very good either), Mailbox is MUCH slower

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-28 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2005-02-27 20:19:09, schrieb Ron Johnson: Sure, for those *20* GB mbox files. Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged... Even on xfs, open a 20 GByte Mailbox will eat up all resources on the System Greetings Michelle -- Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter,

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-28 Thread Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: Am 2005-02-27 20:19:09, schrieb Ron Johnson: Sure, for those *20* GB mbox files. Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged... The same person with the 2GB mbox that started this thread, after s/he neglected it for

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-28 Thread Michelle Konzack
Am 2005-02-28 02:43:45, schrieb Ron Johnson: On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote: Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged... The same person with the 2GB mbox that started this thread, after s/he neglected it for a few more months. :-/ Oh yes, the

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-28 Thread David Schmitt
On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote: [snip] figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3 That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-28 Thread Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 22:55 +0100, David Schmitt wrote: On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote: [snip] figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3 That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive

[OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread sean finney
can't help but chime in here :) On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote: Not every situation warrants using maildir, it uses a large number of inodes, is slow to scan (yes, mbox isn't very good either), inefficient at storing large number of very small files (due to block

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread Ron Johnson
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote: can't help but chime in here :) On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote: [snip] figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3 That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the average

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread Paul Hampson
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote: recent versions of kernel/ext2/ext3 have built-in dirent hashing, which cuts heavily on the many-files penalty. another benefit of maildir is that when you modify a single

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread Ron Johnson
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:54 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote: On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote: recent versions of kernel/ext2/ext3 have built-in dirent hashing, which cuts heavily on the many-files penalty.

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread Glenn Maynard
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Of course, all of these factors depend on the file system used. I am confident somebody could point out a file-system that eliminates many Reiserfs, of course. You meant XFS, right? (Sorry, couldn't be helped. :) -- Glenn

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread Ron Johnson
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 20:54 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Of course, all of these factors depend on the file system used. I am confident somebody could point out a file-system that eliminates many Reiserfs, of course. You

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread sean finney
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there are no html mails. Though, even in my Evolution list archive, where there are many more html-mails, the average size is

Re: [OT] maildir (was Re: procmail and Large File Support)

2005-02-27 Thread Ron Johnson
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 22:26 -0500, sean finney wrote: On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there are no html mails. Though, even in my Evolution list archive, where