From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/11050 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Sudish Joseph Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: saving to nnml groups Date: 23 May 1997 13:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: References: <873eresl3p.fsf@perv.daft.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: coloc-standby.netfonds.no Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 7.106) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1035150824 27984 80.91.224.250 (20 Oct 2002 21:53:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 21:53:44 +0000 (UTC) Return-Path: Original-Received: from sandy.calag.com (root@sandy [206.190.83.128]) by altair.xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA16349 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 11:23:52 -0700 Original-Received: from xemacs.org (xemacs.cs.uiuc.edu [128.174.252.16]) by sandy.calag.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id LAA32139 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 11:23:34 -0700 Original-Received: from ifi.uio.no (0@ifi.uio.no [129.240.64.2]) by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA15207 for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 13:22:49 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: from atreides.eng.mindspring.net (atreides.eng.mindspring.net [207.69.183.11]) by ifi.uio.no with SMTP (8.6.11/ifi2.4) id for ; Fri, 23 May 1997 19:38:00 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 462 invoked by uid 52477); 23 May 1997 17:37:29 -0000 Original-To: ding@ifi.uio.no In-Reply-To: Kai Grossjohann's message of 23 May 1997 16:51:07 +0200 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.4.52/XEmacs 20.2 Original-Lines: 30 Original-Xref: altair.xemacs.org dgnus-list:1439 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:11050 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.gnus.general:11050 Kai Grossjohann writes: > I presume using nnmh will be better because it doesn't have .overview > files, but I don't grok the implications with regard to the active > file. Anyone? In my other long and boring followup, I forgot one point, so here's another long and boring followup. Two for the price of one. Whee! IMHO, using any backend other than nnml is a lose with Gnus. nnml is fast mainly because it maintains the overview info. nnfolder has better I/O patterns than nnml/nnmh -- reading one very large file is better than reading lots of small files on every filesystem I've seen -- but the cost of parsing the nnfolder headers to generate the summary still dominates in a *big* way. The difference is *very* noticeable even on this PPro-200, where you'd expect slowdowns due to filesystem access to be more noticeable than on a slower CPU. I use nnfolder for Gcc-based archiving of mail and Gnus crawls when entering a 200-message folder (200 isn't even _close_ to large for some of my nnml folders where I have 30 day expire times and often do C-u SPC to search for messages). Using a backend with NOV support is the way to go, IMHO. (VM is so quick because it caches similar info in the headers of the message itself. VM even caches summary display info, so summary generation is very quick -- but has the drawback of sometimes giving you weird indentation as you delete parents.) -Sudish