* clemensF <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 07:49:56PM +0200)
>> Ronny Haryanto:
>> I've converted my mailboxes to maildir once, it turned out to be
>> slower than mbox, so I converted back to mbox now. Dunno about MH, but
>> I'm guessing it's about the same speed as maildir since it resembles
>> maildir.
> are your files on a network?
Actually, I think the problem is due to the huge number of files in your
subdirs .. depending on the OS (w/ Linux I think the turn around point is
between 1000 and 2000 entries per dir) soo many files in your directory
makes all directory access slower ..
sticking all files in a big folder will improve speed ..
a lot of small files in a dir vs a big file containing a lot of small
messages shows that the big file is faster
(this is at least partly due to the fact that the caching helps ..)
I haven't bothered doing much experiments with this, but on a few tests
mbox format is the fastest (for me at least).
And as clemens said, NFS (or whatever) will add to the bottle neck ..
with NFS the difference between big file and mane small files becomes even
bigger.
(again, not extensively tested, and it might be due to my configuration,
but what I remember of my OS-knowledge seems to confirm my tests)
Gerhard, <@jasongeo.com> == The Acoustic Motorbiker ==
--
__O Some say the end is near.
=`\<, Some say we'll see armageddon soon
(=)/(=) I certainly hope we will
I could use a vacation
