From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/38782 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: prj@po.cwru.edu (Paul Jarc) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: IMAP vs nnml ? (was: Palm and Gnus) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 17:21:01 -0400 Organization: What did you have in mind? A short, blunt, human pyramid? Message-ID: References: <87d74u4r9g.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> <87zo7wsqm8.fsf@inanna.rimspace.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035174590 24290 80.91.224.250 (21 Oct 2002 04:29:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 04:29:50 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Return-Path: Original-Received: (qmail 2472 invoked from network); 15 Sep 2001 21:21:03 -0000 Original-Received: from multivac.student.cwru.edu (HELO multivac.cwru.edu) (261@129.22.96.25) by gnus.org with SMTP; 15 Sep 2001 21:21:03 -0000 Original-Received: (qmail 11131 invoked by uid 500); 15 Sep 2001 21:21:23 -0000 Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-To: ding@gnus.org Mail-Copies-To: never In-Reply-To: (Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE's message of "Sat, 15 Sep 2001 23:05:37 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.090004 (Oort Gnus v0.04) Emacs/20.7 Original-Lines: 23 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38782 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:38782 Kai.Grossjohann@CS.Uni-Dortmund.DE (Kai Gro=DFjohann) wrote: > I wonder if nnmaildir might be even faster than nnml? I noticed some > talking about nnmaildir caching stuff in main memory. Paul? I've been told nnmaildir feels faster, and that was even before the new marks stuff was added to nnml; I can only imagine that would make nnml slower. nnmaildir does cache things in memory where (AFAIK) other backends do not. It's possible that this is not such a great idea, but if you've got the memory, it probably speeds things up a little. If you don't have the memory, you can turn off some of the caching. I would not be surprised to learn that nnmaildir is much slower on a block-structured filesystem. ReiserFS (which is not block-structured) handles lots of small files quickly and space-efficiently, and nnmaildir takes advantage of that. All this is subjective/speculative, though. I haven't done any measurements. paul