> On which machine? (cpu, mainboard, amount of free RAM, 
> operating system...) If it's new/rather new machine, such 
> result is far below expectations - I get 20 sec on old P120 
> with 32MB RAM and Win95.

Pentium M 2,13 GHz - 533 MHz FSB, 1 GB ram, WinXP Pro, so I guess the
machine should perform good.

> > Is there a way
> > to make the decoding work faster? I have about the same 
> testresult on 
> > the beta and the older version of MimeDec.
> There's many ways to make it faster. First, do not use 
> TMemoryStream as decoded attachment storage *unless* you set 
> it's size so TMemoryStream won't need to reallocate his 
> memory. Second, you should use larger input buffer (not that 
> 4kbyte one), or change decoding logic so you could use 
> memory- mapped file. Third, do not use OnPartLine to store 
> data - set DestStream and leave OnPartLine unassigned (you'll 
> save one jump into and out of the handler, possibly dirtying 
> less processor's L1/L2 cache).
> Fourth, use TMemoryStream (or some kind of 
> TBufferedWriteStream) as decoded data storage (but remember 
> about the first note above). 
> Fifth - discard these fancy progressbars (and progressbar 
> updating code) ;)

I use TMemoryStream. I don't use any progressbars, but I use the old version
MimeDec. And I don't use MimeDec directly, I use it through MimeDecEx from
usermade page, It could be there that I  should use the improvements you

If you think it's a bad idea to use the MimeDecEx from usermade page, could
you provide a working example of how to use the new beta of MimeDec?

Regards Bjørnar

To unsubscribe or change your settings for TWSocket mailing list
please goto http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/twsocket
Visit our website at http://www.overbyte.be

Reply via email to