On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 08:09, Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 22:13 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 10:25 +0800, Not Zed wrote: > > > > On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote: > > > > > tir, 11.05.2004 kl. 18.03 skrev Jeffrey Stedfast: > > > [snip] > > > > > more economical clients (Kmail for a start). > > > > In what way? Our only overhead is indexes and summary files which > > > > are a tiny fraction of the actual message content. > > > > > > Well, I wouldn't go so far as say "tiny". 20-30% is my experience > > > with IMAP-stored email, > > > and 20-90% overhead on .evolution/mail/local email. > > 90% overhead? > > > > Huh. Please explain. > > > > I'm lucky to get 5% for local mail and much less than that for imap > > email. > > > > > I must say, though, that it seems better in 1.5 than it did in > > > 1.[0-4]. > > This is rubbish. The files have got bigger in 1.5, although by a > > miniscule amount. But they are definitely not smaller. > > Since I don't store my mail locally, anymore, and use 1.5, I > can't give you any proof on those scores, but I can tell you > about Evo 1.5 and Courier-IMAP: > > The IMAP data: > $ du -s -h -k Maildir > 153756 Maildir > The Evo 1.5.7 cache: > $ du -s -h -k .evolution/mail/imap/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > 50304 .evolution/mail/imap/[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 32.7% overhead
That's not all indexing overhead, that's mostly locally cached messages. Jeff _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
