powermail-discuss Digest #2697 - Sunday, September 23, 2007
PowerMail 5.2.3 db problem. Please help.
by "Dan MacMillan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Exporting from PowerMail - all mail is Unread
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Powermail support (Was: Re: Exporting from PowerMail - all mail is Un
by "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Re: Powermail support (Was: Re: Exporting from PowerMail - all mail is Un
by "A-NO-NE Music" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: PowerMail 5.2.3 db problem. Please help.
From: "Dan MacMillan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:22:45 -0700 (PDT)
Hello all,
I am having a problem with by installation of PowerMail 5.2.3, and would
very much appreciate any help.
The message database is currently at 2gb, and before I managed to compress
it, a problem developed. After a reboot, PowerMail attempted to rebuild
the sort indicies, but this failed after about 12 minutes with the
following , "A database error occurred" ; "Class=DB ; what=100; when=9;
err=158". I restarted PowerMail a number of times, and this rebuild fails
in the same fashion each time.
Next I tired to to start with the Option and Command keys held down, and
compact the mail, address and settings databases. This failed after about
6 minutes with the following error, "A database error occured" ;
"Class=DB ; what=100 ; when=9 ; err=158".
I also tired to start with the Option and Command keys held down, and do a
low-level database rebuild. This failed after about 14 minutes with the
following error, "An error occured while rebuilding the "Message Database"
file" ; "DB write error (disk full?) ; "Class=DB ; what=4 ; when=100 ;
err=37".
There is 5.02 gig free on my HD.
Thank you!
-Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Exporting from PowerMail - all mail is Unread
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:59:19 -0500
Matthias,
Each of us has his or her own work style, and technical preferences.
While yours are completely valid choices, and likely work best for you,
they're not how I choose and prefer to work. Rather than change the way
I work and think to suit a tool, it better behooves me (and anyone else)
to find a tool that fits the way they work and think (or is flexible
enough to allow that).
For instance, you prefer to delete much of the content of the technical
lists you subscribe to, trusting that they're likely on a web archive
somewhere. For myself, I much prefer to keep them locally, as searching
is exponentially faster, more likely to be available (immune to internet
connection problems, host downtime, airplane flights, etc.), and will
always be there, regardless of the folks keeping that web archive going
out of business or changing their minds about providing the archives.
That's not to say my way is better and you should change the way you
work; but neither should I have to, yes? If you didn't delete that much
email daily - that's to say, if your work style were different, but not
your situation - you'd be having major problems with the 2 gig limit, too.
Food for thought.
Steve
On 9/22/07 at 8:26 AM, Matthias Schmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>How many mails do keep?
>How do you get so many mails?
>I receive around 200 to 300 mails per day.
>But most of the mails are from technical lists.
>All mails from lists, which don't contain important information, I
>delete at once - they are still on some webarchives -
>In the beginning of the year, I also delete old technical information,
>because it's not relevant anymore.
>So without compacting I have in the moment 1.1 gig of maildatabase and I
>use PM since the early days of OS 10.0.
>OK, once in a while I compact the mail database and then it shrinks to
>700 or 800 MB.
>When I switched I also imported my old Eudora database, so I still have
>the first mails sent by my wife :-)
>It would be good, if a new version of PM removes this database limit, on
>the other hand, there are enough workarounds to this limit.
>And trashing irrelevant or outdated information is the first thing you
>can do to make your database "slimmer" ;-)
>
>best
>Matthias
>
>
>Am/On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:32:42 -0400 schrieb/wrote Tim Lapin:
>
>>Barbara Needham wrote:
>>> Tim Lapin on 9/21/07 said
>>>
>>
>>>> Clearly, an email package with strengths in one place (eg searching) and
>>>> weaknesses in other places (eg smaller database sizes) needs to be put
>>>> into the context of the expected use.
>>>
>>> Well, huge is anything that makes your database get "too big.'
>>> And I do kind of disagree with your last point, since the strength of the
>>> searching is the very thing that makes me want to keep all my mail
>>> hanging around. I've been able to search easily and quote exact answers
>>> from previous e-mails when necessary or useful. If I couldn't search it
>>> all I might not bother keeping it!
>>
>>I'm not sure as to which part you disagree. I never said you'd have to
>>give up searching. I'm saying that one of PM's noted strengths is its
>>searching capabilities. On the other hand, having a limit of only 2 GB
>>is clearly hurting some users. Most other apps offer at least 4 GB,
>>while a few others have a limit of 32 GB and at least one, Eudora,
>>seemingly has NO limit owing to its structure.
>>
>>So, in that context, a limit of 2 GB is "small" and therefore a weakness
>>for some here. Furthermore, it seems to outweigh all the advantages
>>that PM provides for these users. Or, to flip your sentence on its
>>head: "If I can't keep ALL my messages at the ready to be searched, I
>>might not bother keeping it!"
>>
>>As to your statement of "too big", again, I'm asking you to put some
>>numbers there. Specifically what is "too big"?. I'll add one more to
>>my initial list:
>>
>>-- the email client starts thrashing in its attempt to manage its
>>database once it reaches "Z" MB in size. Not sure how that applies in a
>>UNIX environment but I mention it anyway.
>>
>
>
>
>
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 & 8 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Powermail support (Was: Re: Exporting from PowerMail - all mail is
Unread)
From: "Steve Abrahamson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:01:33 -0500
On 9/21/07 at 11:04 PM, Winston Weinmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
>This does not mean PowerMail does not "rock" in lots of other areas. But
>would you expect a Mercedes 500 SL to have steel wheels or lack ABS?
Which, I think, comes back to my issue of "what is PowerMail?" Is it a
Mercedes? Or a nice Pontiac?
If it's a nice Pontiac I can understand that the producer doesn't want
to invest a whole lot into it - it's middle-market, and doesn't deserve
a lot of R&D. But if it's a Mercedes, I expect it.
(And don't tell me it's a Citroen, because we don't have those here... ; -)
Steve Abrahamson
Ascending Technologies
FileMaker 7 & 8 Certified Developer
http://www.asctech.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Powermail support (Was: Re: Exporting from PowerMail - all mail is
Unread)
From: "A-NO-NE Music" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 09:13:19 -0400
Steve Abrahamson / 07.9.22 / 7:01 PM wrote:
>Which, I think, comes back to my issue of "what is PowerMail?" Is it a
>Mercedes? Or a nice Pontiac?
Y'know, my 1995 E320 Wagon, which is now 170,000+ miles and still
kicking hard, even doesn't have a cup holder and glove box. My ex-1990
Volvo even had them. Metcedes has been out of design loop. American
cars have had _features_, always.
--
- Hiro
Hiroaki Honshuku, A-NO-NE Music, Boston, MA
<http://a-no-ne.com> <http://anonemusic.com>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of powermail-discuss Digest
