* Alexander Skwar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > With mutt, I get the same kind of results. However, other MUAs behave > differently. For instance, when I did the testing, Evolution opened > the same Maildir way faster than it handled the mbox file (which > contained the same messages). mutt seems to be *extremely* optimized > for mbox.
Evolution is aimed at maildir, and so does metadata caching. Probably worth a look by anyone interested in adding similar functionality to mutt (hello Mr Elkins :) And yes, mutt's optimized for mbox style stuff, in that it does minimal writes 'n' stuff which lesser clients probably don't. 'n' stuff. > reiserfs. I wonder what sort of interesting things you could do with mailfs.. having the underlying filesystem know something about the format of messages and how they're accessed would probably be good for those users who absolutely demand support for insanely huge mailspools. > The Maildir/mbox I tested, had 84.533 messages and about 321 MB. > Opening the mbox beast took 2:53 minutes, while opening the same > converted to Maildir (with mutt) took more than 25 minutes. Go > figure... I think the obvious answer here is "don't use mailboxes of any format that big and expect any sort of decent performance outside some very specific situations" :) Metadata caching would probably be good on really large mboxes too, but tbh I think the effort would be better spent on a decent mail archiving tool that handles all the different formats, compression etc, so us must-not-delete-anything obsessives can keep our working folders small :) <eyes ~/bin/mailarchive.rb, looks shiftily at mutt-users, and hides> -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/ - Vax Vobiscum
