Re: best mailbox format?

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 11:17:06, Peter Bloomfield wrote:

> See for some  
> general discussion of flat-file (e.g. mbox) versus file/message (e.g. mh  
> and maildir) formats.  File/message is more robust, because there's no  
> single huge file to get scrambled, but apparently with real-world file  
> systems they're inherently slower.

newer filesystems (xfs, ext3-something, reiserfs-somethingthatactuallyworks)  
are supposed to handle walking dirs much better. in fact, mh/maildir on older  
stuff like OSF/1(DigitalUnix) or sunos was pretty much insanity has opening a  
dir with more than say, 200 entries blew dead bears.
Anyway, I'm imagining on this tests the dcache is geting nicely cleaned while  
buffers are staying.

In short, YMMV :)

Carlos Morgado - chbm(a) - 
0x1FC57F0A FP:0A27 35D3 C448 3641 0573 6876 2A37 4BB2 1FC5 7F0A

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]