On Tuesday, 14 March 2000 at 21:23, Eric Boehm wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2000 at 06:59:48PM -0600, David DeSimone wrote:
> >>>>> "David" == David DeSimone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Eric> I have found that mutt 1.1.9 is about 4x slower reading a 7.4 MB
> Eric> mail file with 1451 messages in it than mutt 1.0.
>
> David> NFS? What type(s) of file locking? Differences in "mutt -v"
> David> output?
>
> Yes, across NFS. I copied the file to a local drive and ran both mutts. The
> time was about the same (1.8 sec). Both mutts were also run from a local
> drive.
>
> Interestingly enough, I rebuilt both under HP-UX 10.20 and I got similar times
> to bring up the same file (across NFS) with both versions (about 20 sec). I've
> attached the mutt -v output for both versions under HP-UX 10.20.
>
> I went back and rebuilt both versions under Solaris 2.6. I still get the same
> reults -- 7.9 secs for mutt 1.0, 29-30 secs for mutt 1.1.9.
>
> I'm open to other suggestions/explanations.
I don't have any answer, but I do seem to recall that file locking was
made more paranoid during 1.1, due to NFS snafus which could cause
lost mail. I would guess the culprit might be there... maybe you could
try forcing flock instead of fcntl to test (not that I'd recommend
running that way) - don't write to the folder, just open it...
really I'm just guessing.
-Brendan
PGP signature
