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

[Ron Johnson <ron l johnson cox net>]

On Mon, 2004-05-17 at 09:41 -0400, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote:
> 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.

Ah, ok.

However, this statement is still false: "In what way?  Our only 
overhead is indexes and summary files which are a tiny fraction of 
the actual message content."

-- 
Ron Johnson <ron l johnson cox net>