* Alexander Skwar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: So sprach »Ricardo SIGNES« am 2002-01-27 um 11:02:07 -0500 : > > that Maildir is faster. > > Well, saying it so broad as you did, the only answer to this is, > that your statement is wrong. On certain filesystems Maildir may be > a little faster than mbox, but for example on reiserfs Maildir is > tremendously slower in mutt.
Maildir may be faster if you know it's going to be cached. It's still likely to be a bit slower on reading, but updates are usually going to be faster. I demonstrated this when I gave cached/noncached examples; while mbox was only slowed down by about 15%, Maildir took over 300% longer to read, but when cached there was barely a 10% difference. For an often accessed working folder on a system with plenty of memory and few users, Maildir will probably have the edge, especially if you're not one of us 700+ message a day weirdo's who keep all their mail :) -- Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.aagh.net/ - Those who believe in astrology are living in houses with foundations of Silly Putty. -- Dennis Rawlins
