On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 10:46 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 12:46 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 09:41 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > Ah, ok.
> >
> > However, this statement is still false: "In what way? Our only
> > overhead is indexes and summary files which are a tiny fraction of
> > the actual message content."
>
> Oh don't be a pedant. It is however, entirely accurate. A tiny
> fraction of the _actual message content_. The cache is _actual
> message content_, and the indices are the overhead.
I don't think it's being pedantic to assert (and give proof) that Evo
has 33% overhead on my system. It doesn't matter whether it indexes,
summaries or locally cached messages. It's overhead.
My wife's Evo 1.4.4 has almost 100% overhead.
$ sudo du -s -h -k ~heather/Maildir
112860 /home/heather/Maildir
$ ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED] sudo du -s -h -k \
~heather/evolution/mail/imap/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Password:
Password:
104924 /home/heather/evolution/mail/imap/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
92.9% overhead.
> If you're just using maildir on the local machine, just use maildir on
> hte local machine and don't use imap to get to it.
IMAP:
1. allows for webmail
2. also stores my wife's email is also on it.
--
Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
