Re: Evo overhead (was Re: [Evolution] Connector GPLed!!!)

On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 08:09, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 18:29 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
On Sun, 2004-05-16 at 22:13 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 10:25 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 17:12 +0200, Tony Earnshaw wrote:  
tir, 11.05.2004 kl. 18.03 skrev Jeffrey Stedfast:
more economical clients (Kmail for a start).
In what way?  Our only overhead is indexes and summary files which
are a tiny fraction of the actual message content.

Well, I wouldn't go so far as say "tiny".  20-30% is my experience
with IMAP-stored email, 
and 20-90% overhead on .evolution/mail/local email.
90% overhead?

Huh.  Please explain.

I'm lucky to get 5% for local mail and much less than that for imap

I must say, though, that it seems better in 1.5 than it did in
This is rubbish.  The files have got bigger in 1.5, although by a
miniscule amount.  But they are definitely not smaller.

Since I don't store my mail locally, anymore, and use 1.5, I
can't give you any proof on those scores, but I can tell you
about Evo 1.5 and Courier-IMAP:

The IMAP data:
      $ du -s -h -k Maildir   
      153756  Maildir
The Evo 1.5.7 cache:
      $ du -s -h -k .evolution/mail/imap/me haggis
      50304   .evolution/mail/imap/me haggis

32.7% overhead

That's not all indexing overhead, that's mostly locally cached messages.


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