On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also >> take a long long time, and is synchronizing all the flags. It's >> slightly faster than mbsync at doing so, but that's not an issue. > > Is this for the first time that you try to access a folder, or > afterwards?
Every single time. > I keep a folder that has about 1GB worth of e-mails, with > about 40,000 mail messages. Using mbsync hasn't really been a problem > once the folder has been initially downloaded, since we do a good job > caching the header information. There is the initial overhead of > downloading the set of e-mail messages which are still on the mail > server when we first start up the mbsync connection, but that's a > straightforward download of the information, and it's not done in a > lock-step fashion. The problem is not the downloading of new messages, it's the time it takes to synchronize all the flags. The folder I'm testing has almost 150,000 messages, and it's not the biggest one, just the biggest I've synced so far. Try 'Sync PullNew' and see how long it takes in your folder. The second problem is the limiting of messages to download. I don't want to download 300k messages, just to delete all of them except the ones of last week, which is apparently the only way to make MaxMessages work. -- Felipe Contreras ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
