Derek Martin wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:23:25PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > On 14.07.2015, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > > With mbox, I guess the designers thought there wouldn't be that much of a
> > > speed improvement
> > > because it's just a sequential read of a single file.
> >
While we're at it: is it at all possible (vanilla or patched) to enable
hcache for _some_ mailboxes but not for others? The documentation
explains that it is possible to force separate hcache database files for
distinct mailboxes, so this doesn't look like a huge stretch.
--
Please *no* private
On 14Jul2015 12:36, Ian Zimmerman wrote:
On 2015-07-14 20:23 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
I'm using both IMAP and maildir, and hcache is a real and quite
noticeable improvement.
FWIW, I use maildir too but locally, and turning hcache on did not
result in a clear speed up. My largest folders ar
On Tuesday 14 Jul 2015 20:36:05 Ian Zimmerman wrote:
> On 2015-07-14 20:23 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> > I'm using both IMAP and maildir, and hcache is a real and quite
> > noticeable improvement.
>
> FWIW, I use maildir too but locally, and turning hcache on did not
> result in a clear speed up.
On 2015-07-14 20:23 +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> I'm using both IMAP and maildir, and hcache is a real and quite
> noticeable improvement.
FWIW, I use maildir too but locally, and turning hcache on did not
result in a clear speed up. My largest folders are around 5000 messages
each.
--
Please *
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 08:23:25PM +0200, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> On 14.07.2015, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> > With mbox, I guess the designers thought there wouldn't be that much of a
> > speed improvement
> > because it's just a sequential read of a single file.
>
> That sounds reasonable.
Except
On 14.07.2015, Kevin J. McCarthy wrote:
> I think the hcache helps to alleviate network latency (pop/imap) and for
> opening and closing thousands of files (maildir/mh).
Jepp! And for IMAP, it may not be neccessary at all to read more than
the header of most of the mails. Ex: a large mailing lis
[14/07 12:59] Jon LaBadie:
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Larry Hynes wrote:
[14/07 12:42] Eric Smith:
>It works for me consistantly with imap and with maildir.
>Faster and the files in the header_cache dir are uopdated.
>Nope on both counts with mbox.
>
>What is the reason for this
On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 05:29:23PM +0100, Larry Hynes wrote:
> [14/07 12:42] Eric Smith:
>
> >I have the same compile flags, however I opted for the hcache backend as
> >tokyocabinet.
> >Even with GDBM, I could not implement header caching on mbox :(
> >In fact I thought at one time it was workin
[14/07 12:42] Eric Smith:
I have the same compile flags, however I opted for the hcache backend as
tokyocabinet.
Even with GDBM, I could not implement header caching on mbox :(
In fact I thought at one time it was working with mbox as the loading was
apparently faster than without the
header_c
Eric Smith wrote:
> So is this indeed supported for mbox?
Sorry, hcache is only implemented for pop, imap, maildir, and mh.
> What is the reason for this?
I think the hcache helps to alleviate network latency (pop/imap) and for
opening and closing thousands of files (maildir/mh). With mbox, I g
I have the same compile flags, however I opted for the hcache backend as
tokyocabinet.
Even with GDBM, I could not implement header caching on mbox :(
In fact I thought at one time it was working with mbox as the loading was
apparently faster than without the
header_cache set in config. But I co
12 matches
Mail list logo
