On Wed, 2002-11-20 at 17:08, Ettore Perazzoli wrote: > > Yeah, but still, do we have any idea why uw.imapd would be slower? > > Anyways, I'd love to see actual numbers posted. :-) > > If anyone has a chance to run both Evolution 1.0.x and 1.2.0 against the > same non-Courier IMAP server and the same mailboxes, could s/he please > do some measurements and post the results here? > > While I am not at all convinced that we should dismiss the issue as the > server's fault, it is a bit frustrating to not have any precise idea of > which servers are slower with 1.2 and exactly by how much.
I don't have any numbers for now, but I tried 1.2 for a couple of days and it was _a lot_ slower than 1.0.8 against an uw.imapd server: when I tried to open my sevenseas.org mailbox with ~1500 messages over a 640kbs/adsl line I had to wait several minutes, while with 1.0.8 I wait 10-15 seconds. I tried to filter the mailbox (I have ~150 filters and the same number of folders, some local and some on another imap server); the process started when I left the office in the late evening, the next morning was always running and evolution unusable. I killed the process and downgraded to the 1.0.8 version. > > -- > Ettore Perazzoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Andrea Dell'Amico - <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sendmail may be safely run set-user-id to root. -- Eric Allman, "Sendmail Installation Guide" _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
