From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/36551
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Ken McGlothlen <mcglk@artlogix.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general
Subject: Re: Wow.
Date: 01 Jun 2001 14:30:59 -0700
Sender: mcglk@ralf.artlogix.com
Message-ID: <87n17r99bg.fsf@ralf.artlogix.com>
References: <87elt7gvq4.fsf_-_@ralf.artlogix.com> <whitih7ump.fsf@metis.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035172117 9178 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 03:48:37 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 03:48:37 +0000 (UTC)
Return-Path: <mcglk@artlogix.com>
Return-Path: <mcglk@artlogix.com>
Original-Received: (qmail 28981 invoked from network); 1 Jun 2001 21:31:14 -0000
Original-Received: from sense-mcglk-240.oz.net (HELO ralf.artlogix.com) (216.39.168.240)
  by gnus.org with SMTP; 1 Jun 2001 21:31:14 -0000
Original-Received: by ralf.artlogix.com (Postfix, from userid 1000)
	id BDD981B9DC4; Fri,  1 Jun 2001 14:31:05 -0700 (PDT)
Original-To: ding@gnus.org
In-Reply-To: <whitih7ump.fsf@metis.no>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
Original-Lines: 14
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36551
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:36551

Steinar Bang <sb@metis.no> writes:

| >>>>> Ken McGlothlen <mcglk@artlogix.com>:
| 
| > A plain ol' xemacs process takes up about 9MB, not 90MB.  So is Gnus
| > really sucking up this much memory?
| 
| Do you have any old nnml groups with sparse article numbers?  I saw
| someone write something about the fact that expanding ranges in emacs,
| cost a lot of memory.  It is very slow, at least.

Yeah, I think I do.  But would old nntp groups with sparse article numbers do
the same thing?  And is there a way to easily correct for that without having
to forward them though the mail system again?