CTM info (9/11/10, 14:54) said: >Contrary to popular belief, removing the 2GB per database maximum size >limit is a considerable endeavour indeed
Having done some 32/64-bit file stuff in the past, I know that Jean Michel is understating the issue here. It's quite a big deal. On Wed, Nov 10, 2010, Jeremy Hughes <[email protected]> wrote: >Personally, I don't think that the 2GB limit is the core problem. The >core problem is that Powermail uses a single monolithic database (which >has a 2GB limit). > >How about keeping the limit, but replacing the single database format >with multiple databases - one for each mail folder or subfolder, any of >which can be up to 2GB in size? > >That would solve the issue for me, and it would also resolve the issue >of backup programs having to backup all my mail on a daily basis >(instead of merely backing up changed folders). I'm fortunate that my database is comfortably within the 2 GB limit but the always-backing-up is a problem. I have commented in the past that a somewhat Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson solution is to have your database in a sparse bundle disk image. The mounted image appears as a regular volume but, under the covers, it's a collection of 8 MB bands. When your database changes, only a few of the bands are changed so only those are copied in your incremental backup process (Time Machine or other similar). This scheme is, in fact, what FileVault uses -- your entire home directory is an encrypted sparse bundle disk image. So I wonder if PowerMail might integrate this approach (only for 10.5 and later, of course. Does anyone else think this might be an appropriate feature-request? Regards.....Peter
