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

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

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:
> > > [snip]  
> > > > > 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
> > email.
> >
> > > I must say, though, that it seems better in 1.5 than it did in
> > > 1.[0-4].
> > 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.

Jeff