................Mon 8.Apr'13 at 8:55:16 -0600 Nicolas Bock................
> Hi all,
>
> that makes a lot of sense. I just double checked with TB and yes, it is
> basically the same speed. Synchronizing the headers takes forever :)
>
> I will have to start labelling emails much more aggressively, thanks for the
> tip!
>
> nick
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 11:31:53AM +0200, Jonny Oschätzky wrote:
> > Hi Nick,
> >
> > > The local read test really seems to indicate that it's not the database
> > > backend that is controlling performance when switching folders here. It is
> > > presumable network communication with Google's imap servers. And that
> > > presumably means that I can't do much about it, or can I?
> >
> > I can confirm this.
> >
> > If you have a big mailbox (my "All Mail" contains ~150,000 messages),
> > then the Google IMAP server is very slow. I've checked this with
> > Thunderbird and the result is mostly the same. TB opens the box very
> > fast and then it takes a long time to update the header cache.
> >
> > The IMAP protocol itself causes this, because it needs to synchronize
> > the folder. The bigger a folder is the longer this process takes.
> >
> > I solved this problem for me with offlineimap and archivemail. I don't
> > need the All Mail folder since I use labels for all my stuff and mailing
> > lists. So it results in different Maildirs on my PC which are
> > synchronized by offlineimap in the background. Older mail is archived by
> > archivemail in gzipped mboxes. That works great. :)
> >
> > Jonny
> >
Purely just out of curiosity, why would you need to keep such a high
number of email? Is this something quite common (at risk of sounding a
bit stupid)? I just can't imagine ever keeping that much email in my
account.
--
James Griffin: jmz at kontrol.kode5.net
jmzgriffin at gmail.com
A4B9 E875 A18C 6E11 F46D B788 BEE6 1251 1D31 DC38
