On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, David Clarke wrote:
Don't know why but for me there isn't much of a difference between them,
everyone else seems to be getting a big difference. I was however
I just noticed the partition I was testing on was actually ext3, which
probably explains my results.
On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Alexander Skwar wrote:
FWIW, I just did some testing using mutt 1.3.25i on my Athlon 800 MHz,
786 MB RAM, and a IBM DDRS-39130W SCSI UW hard drive running reiserfs.
The Maildir/mbox I tested, had 84.533 messages and about 321 MB.
Opening the mbox beast took 2:53 minutes,
Matthew --
...and then Matthew D. Fuller said...
%
% On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:26:55PM -0500 I heard the voice of
% Derek D. Martin, and lo! it spake thus:
%
% In which case I would ask, dude, why? I thought my counterpart at
% work was a pack rat... ;-)
%
% Hmmm
% Well, my current
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:39:52PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
But how does it compare to mbox on the same FS? I'll bet it's still
significantly slower.
opening times might be ... but think about updating times and the
no locking needed goodies :-)
--
Christian Ordig
Germany
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 06:45:54PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Michael Elkins, and lo! it spake thus:
Mutt attempts to compensate for this by using quoted-printable encoding when
it detects things that might break a signature, thus escaping the problem.
But yes, mbox format is more
* Derek D. Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux with ext2, and i
can attest to the fact that Maildir is pretty slow on ext2.
And most other filesystems... Try it on FAT. =8^)
I think
At some point hitherto, Thomas Hurst hath spake thusly:
* Derek D. Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux with ext2, and i
can attest to the fact that Maildir is pretty slow on ext2.
At 04:50 AM 1/21/02 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
Personally, I use maildir for all my 'active' mailboxes (read: the ones
that mail gets delivered to and I read) because it's that much safer,
easier and more efficient to alter, and roughly similar in speed to open.
I use mbox for my archive
Michael Elkins wrote:
I'd be curious to get some feedback on my header caching patch for maildir
folders (can be found at http://www.sigpipe.org:8080/mutt/).
ok a little more feedback. overall performance is a little zippier, but
if i leave a folder open and it receives messages, i get the
Andy --
...and then Andy Davidson said...
%
% At 04:50 AM 1/21/02 -0600, Matthew D. Fuller wrote:
%
% Personally, I use maildir for all my 'active' mailboxes (read: the ones
...
% I use mbox for my archive mailboxes, because it's simpler and more compact
...
%
% I am in the process of
I wrote:
% And it appears that the archive mailboxes *have* to be mboxes.
% If I try to save a message to an existing maildir folder, mutt objects.
At 12:17 PM 1/21/02 -0500, David T-G wrote:
Um, that shouldn't be the case. mutt will happily read and write mbox,
Maildir, MMDF, and MH
So sprach »Benjamin Michotte« am 2002-01-20 um 19:33:10 +0100 :
What are the benefits of using one type over the other?
opening a mbox with ± 7000 mails : less than 10 seconds.
opening the same in Maildir : 3 minutes...
With mutt, I get the same kind of results. However, other MUAs behave
So sprach »Christian Ordig« am 2002-01-21 um 11:22:04 +0100 :
opening times might be ... but think about updating times and the
Well, that's true, however, updating times aren't *that* important for
me. When I receive new mail, I let procmail sort it into appropriate
mailfiles; each list has
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:37:01PM +0100, Alexander Skwar wrote:
running reiserfs.
well ... as tests showed, ReiserFS seems to be a _really_ slow
beast when it comes to read Maildir folders ... tried with Ext2/3?
Should be really faster.
--
Christian Ordig
Germany
At some point hitherto, Alexander Skwar hath spake thusly:
The Maildir/mbox I tested, had 84.533 messages and about 321 MB. Opening
Eh? How does one have .533 messages in a mailbox? Perhaps fractional
messages are some feature of Maildir that I was unaware of?
Um... Oh, are you European?
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 09:26:55PM -0500 I heard the voice of
Derek D. Martin, and lo! it spake thus:
Um... Oh, are you European? I seem to recall that Europeans switch
the meaning of '.' and ',' in numbers, as compared to us US types...
So perhaps you meant eighty-four thousand five
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate directory for each mail (each what, exactly)?
What are the benefits of using one type over the other?
Thanks.
--
David Rock
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:08:44PM, David Rock wrote:
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate directory for each mail (each what, exactly)?
one folder for a box, each mail in a
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 12:08:44PM -0600, David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate directory for each mail (each what, exactly)?
What are the
one minute to open the whole mutt archive of last year
(about 9900 messages)...
the advantage of Maildir over mbox I see: deleting a single message
in a really big mailbox is nothing more than simply deleting one
file with mbox it means writing the whole folder again leaving out
this one message
to compare.
on my P100 with a quite old HDD running OpenBSD 2.9 it takes
about one minute to open the whole mutt archive of last year
(about 9900 messages)...
It takes about 7 seconds to open my mutt archive with 7914 messages.
the advantage of Maildir over mbox I see: deleting a single message
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 12:08:44 -0600
From: David Rock [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mutt Users List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: maildir over mbox?
I was just wondering what the real differences were between maildir and
mbox formats? I know mbox is an appended file while maildir is a
separate
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 07:33:10PM, Benjamin Michotte wrote:
What are the benefits of using one type over the other?
opening a mbox with ± 7000 mails : less than 10 seconds.
opening the same in Maildir : 3 minutes...
Oh my good... convert my reiserfs partition to ext3...
about 10-15 seconds
.
the advantage of Maildir over mbox I see: deleting a single message
in a really big mailbox is nothing more than simply deleting one
file with mbox it means writing the whole folder again leaving out
this one message .
yes, I know. I tried to convert my mbox to Maildirs, but about 3 minutes
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:39:05PM +0100, Benjamin Michotte wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:01:39PM, Christian Ordig wrote:
uhhh ... what kind of system did you use for measurement??
P2-350 with a 20Gb HDD running Linux 2.4.17 on a Slackware 8.0.
My ~/mail is on a 600 Mb reiserfs
Oh my good... convert my reiserfs partition to ext3...
about 10-15 seconds to open my mutt Maildir now !!!
ooops ... I should have already read this mail before answering the
last subthread ,-)
little question: cached or first opening ?
Absolutly... reiserfs sucks.
*g*
--
Christian Ordig
As a slight aside on this discussion, I had read somewhere --- citation
lost --- that the munging of mboxes to escape lines beginning From in a
message to From messed up PGP signing. Is this valid? [I suspect not,
because I see lots of signed messages and you can't *all* be using
maildirs, can
At some point hitherto, budsz hath spake thusly:
yes, I know. I tried to convert my mbox to Maildirs, but about 3 minutes
to open a folder is really awfull, so I keep mbox
If we look in speed to read right..? how about savety...? let's say I want
to copy paste 1000 email to some place, I
Christian Ordig wrote:
Filesystem: UFS, mounted sync
[...]
Are there others having such poor performance with Maildir as Benjamin
has? And with which filesystem OS combinations?
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux with ext2, and i can
attest to the fact that Maildir is pretty
At some point hitherto, Roman Neuhauser hath spake thusly:
This format can get _very_ slow with large mailboxes on filesystems that do
not handle directoris with many files in them. This should include the
Linux ext2fs.
FreeBSD post-4.4 FFS with softupdates and dirhash
Andy Davidson wrote:
As a slight aside on this discussion, I had read somewhere --- citation
lost --- that the munging of mboxes to escape lines beginning From in a
message to From messed up PGP signing. Is this valid? [I suspect not,
because I see lots of signed messages and you can't
At some point hitherto, Will Yardley hath spake thusly:
Christian Ordig wrote:
Filesystem: UFS, mounted sync
[...]
Are there others having such poor performance with Maildir as Benjamin
has? And with which filesystem OS combinations?
our office mail machine is (unfortunately) linux
Derek D. Martin wrote:
I'm no expert, but it strikes me that OPENING maildir mailboxes on ANY
filesystem will ALWAYS be slower than mbox, because of what you need
to do. An mbox mailbox will generally have little fragmentation on
I'd be curious to get some feedback on my header caching patch
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 09:21:44PM -0500, Derek D. Martin wrote:
It's not any safer if you do it RIGHT. In computer science, you want
to tend to optimize for the common case, and the common case when
reading e-mail is wanting quick access. :)
Absolutely, I mean in my experience, I'll choise
Derek D. Martin wrote:
But how does it compare to mbox on the same FS? I'll bet it's still
significantly slower.
but with mbox, the entire file has to be stated every time the file is
read or modified. with a large file, this can be pretty resource
intensive, and can also be time consuming.
Derek D. Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No manager I've ever worked for would tolerate waiting 3 minutes to
open their inbox...
That's funny because where I work, we use Lotus Notes, and I'm
sure many managers routinely wait this long for Notes to open
their inboxes (particularly if they
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:31:56AM, Christian Ordig wrote:
little question: cached or first opening ?
the first opening takes about 20 seconds (for this 7900 mails) and when
it's cached, it takes about 10-15 seconds, which is really more
acceptable ;)
Christian Ordig
---end quoted text---
On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 02:29:22AM, Christian Ordig wrote:
well ... promises of ReiserFS should even tell us it's optimized for
filesystems holding thousands of small files ...
well, I think it's it's optimized for... hum, nothing ;)
Number of messages: 9089 (mutt-users archive of 2001)
Michael Elkins wrote:
I'd be curious to get some feedback on my header caching patch for
maildir folders (can be found at http://www.sigpipe.org:8080/mutt/).
(thanks to michael for helping me to get this to compile)... anyway
finally got this to work. note that you have to put
one last thing - if you're using the patch by david champion to count
attachments, it won't work with this patch. this is because mutt
doesn't look at the message file at all... so all files show up as if
they had one attachment.
w
40 matches
Mail list logo
