On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 05:56:01PM -0500, Alan Brown wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002, Randall Gellens wrote:
>
> > Thus, after making the switch pre-existing messages in the spool will
> > have UIDs that contain a random element, while new messages won't.
> > So there shouldn't be a problem with downloading old mail again.
>
> The question is what the CPU hit is like.
The more I research performance, the more I'm becoming aware that email
machines are nearly completely I/O bound. I believe it would be worth
trading a fairly walloping CPU hit for fewer disk accesses (because
there is no longer a need to rewrite the spool to insert the UIDLs.)
> > However, there is a greater chance of duplicate UIDs, which means
> > that potentially some messages might not get downloaded (since they
> > seem to be the same as an earlier message to the client).
>
> putting that in context, it was more of a problem with the older,
> shorted UIDLs, with current ones it should be unlikely even with a few
> thousand messages in the inbox on the client machine and the servefr.
Thanks for the clarification.
-- Clifton
--
Clifton Royston -- LavaNet Systems Architect -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"What do we need to make our world come alive?
What does it take to make us sing?
While we're waiting for the next one to arrive..." - Sisters of Mercy
