On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 22:23, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 12:45, Scott Otterson wrote: > > Jeff, those are great numbers but I suspect the test isn't measuring the > > thing I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is amount of time > > evolution spends rechecking message headers and updating vfolders. For > > example, I just did this: > ah, so now it's vFolders...
vfolders aren't an issue here, I normally run with two IMAP backends (home and work email), one backend is on the localhost, the other on a machine just across the room on the same network. [...] > > Can you think of a way to test this aspect? Do you think that the > > checking and rechecking is because of evolutions's interaction with UW > > IMAP v.s. other kinds of IMAP? If so, the problem is solvable because > > the mozilla IMAP doesn't spend this much time checking and rechecking. > > what I don't understand is why you are comparing Evolution's > vFolder-over-IMAP speed to Mozilla's plain IMAP speed. Of course > Mozilla's plain IMAP is gonna be faster. I'll do some mozilla vs evo-1.2.0 later today and post the results. [...] > fast stuff loaded in 1.0.8 compared to 1.2.0? As far as I know, this > should all be faster... but it'd be good to get times to compare. If you can point me to a 1.0.8 deb I can grab I'll try comparing both against the setup here and bug it. Mark -- The Flying Hamster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.korenwolf.net/ MMMmmmmm........ chocolate........ MMMmmmmm........ coffee........ I have the true POWER! All hardware is DOOMED! _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
