Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-06-01 Thread Rocco Rutte
Hi, * James wrote: Once Mutt has completely loaded it works fine when poking around on the inbox. When, however, I try to open another mailbox (regardless of size -- sometimes 19 messages, sometimes many thousands), it waits in the sorting messages stage. What precisely is Mutt doing? Is

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-06-01 Thread Rocco Rutte
Hi, * James wrote: Maybe my IMAP server is kinda slow then? Seems so... Here's what I have in my .muttrc file (for caching): set header_cache=~/.mutt/cache/headers set message_cachedir=~/.mutt/cache/messages There seem to be files in there, so I imagine that the caching is

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-06-01 Thread Rocco Rutte
Hi, * bill lam wrote: set message_cache_clean=yes Settings this permanently decreases performance, especially on large folders. Though I tend to forget to set it only from time to time... so I made it permanent, too... :) Rocco

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-06-01 Thread Rocco Rutte
Hi, * James wrote: I'm uncertain, however, why it takes so long for mutt to load at first. Isn't that what the header cache is for? What exactly is mutt doing when it first loads and takes ~20sec (on my end) to load everything? Running with debug will tell you. It would be nice if you could

handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
All, I use procmail + mutt and am running into a problem that is limiting my usage of mutt. Currently procmail sorts some very high volume mailing lists into specific folders (mbox format). I'm using mutt as an IMAP client and when I add these mailboxes to my .muttrc file, mutt sometimes takes 5

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Daryl Styrk
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 09:51:16AM -0400, James wrote: All, I use procmail + mutt and am running into a problem that is limiting my usage of mutt. Currently procmail sorts some very high volume mailing lists into specific folders (mbox format).

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Rocco Rutte
Hi, * James wrote: I use procmail + mutt and am running into a problem that is limiting my usage of mutt. Currently procmail sorts some very high volume mailing lists into specific folders (mbox format). I'm using mutt as an IMAP client and when I add these mailboxes to my .muttrc file, mutt

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Rocco Rutte pd...@gmx.net wrote: Hi, * James wrote: I use procmail + mutt and am running into a problem that is limiting my usage of mutt. Currently procmail sorts some very high volume mailing lists into specific folders (mbox format). I'm using mutt as

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread bill lam
On Sun, 31 May 2009, James wrote: By large I'm talking about, uhhh, ~7000 emails. More or less. My imap account in gmail have over 3 message, and also a local maildir mailbox for rss having over 8 message. They need about 10 to 30 seconds to initial cache checking. FYI -- regards,

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
Hum. Maybe my IMAP server is kinda slow then? I could try tying mutt to my Gmail account to see what happens. Here's what I have in my .muttrc file (for caching): set header_cache=~/.mutt/cache/headers set message_cachedir=~/.mutt/cache/messages There seem to be files in there, so I

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
Bill, What do you have your $mail_check set to? If I set it to something rather low (15), mutt becomes extremely slow. -j 2009/5/31 James j...@nc.rr.com: Hum. Maybe my IMAP server is kinda slow then? I could try tying mutt to my Gmail account to see what happens. Here's what I have in

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread bill lam
On Sun, 31 May 2009, James wrote: Bill, are you saying that after the initial 30 second process for your Gmail, everything loads up instantly (specific email messages, etc.) afterwards? Since only headers are downloaded, new message take time to download when actually first read the message.

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread bill lam
On Sun, 31 May 2009, James wrote: Bill, What do you have your $mail_check set to? If I set it to something rather low (15), mutt becomes extremely slow. This is the relevant portion of my muttrc # activate TLS if available on the server set ssl_starttls=yes # always use SSL when

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
It seems a good bit of the problem I am having is related to the $mail_check period. If I have it too low mutt becomes completely unresponsive, regardless of what I try to do. Setting it to a more reasonable value (75 seconds) improves the situation a bit. I'm uncertain, however, why it takes so

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
Many thanks, Bill. Let me tinker with the timers that I have set and I will report back. :) -j 2009/5/31 James j...@nc.rr.com: It seems a good bit of the problem I am having is related to the $mail_check period. If I have it too low mutt becomes completely unresponsive, regardless of what I

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Kyle Wheeler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sunday, May 31 at 10:46 AM, quoth James: Bill, What do you have your $mail_check set to? If I set it to something rather low (15), mutt becomes extremely slow. And for obvious reasons! Is there REALLY a good reason that you'd need to check

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Kyle Wheeler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sunday, May 31 at 11:02 AM, quoth James: It seems a good bit of the problem I am having is related to the $mail_check period. If I have it too low mutt becomes completely unresponsive, regardless of what I try to do. Again - for obvious

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
I was simply tinkering with variuos knobs and buttons in order to figure out precisely *what* was slowing everything down. :) By setting $mail_check so low I discovered that it was likely the culprit. -j On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Kyle Wheeler kyle-m...@memoryhole.net wrote: -BEGIN

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
You mail admins take things too personally. ;) I said something *more* reasonable because, as I mentioned earlier, I was turning knobs and pushing buttons to figure out what may have been slowing everything down. 75 is not the value I expect to use on a daily basis. I'm simply troubleshooting to

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Patrick Ben Koetter
* James j...@nc.rr.com: Hum. Maybe my IMAP server is kinda slow then? What do you run? If it is Courier, there will be no indices on the server and all reading is done the moment you access the mailbox. This makes it very slow. In this case migrating to e.g. Dovecot will give you an enormous

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread James
I've been tinkering some more with this whole thing. Once Mutt has completely loaded it works fine when poking around on the inbox. When, however, I try to open another mailbox (regardless of size -- sometimes 19 messages, sometimes many thousands), it waits in the sorting messages stage. A

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Michelle Konzack
Hi James, How many mailboxes you you have defined for checking? I have LKM and others with more then 100.000 messages in it and it is very fast. However, if you have more then 20 mailboxes defined, you will see a decreasing performance while mutt is polling the mailboxes for new messages.

Re: handling very large mailboxes

2009-05-31 Thread Kyle Wheeler
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On Sunday, May 31 at 02:45 PM, quoth James: You mail admins take things too personally. ;) Heh - fair enough. I've talked to enough people that think checking mail every second is entirely reasonable that I assumed you fell in that camp as well.