Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
* Brendan Cully wrote: [...] Would you be willing to try imap as well as imaps? (blowing away the caches each time). It'd help narrow down the places I'd have to look. Makes no difference, IMAP and IMAPS are both slow, Maildir is as fast as usual. Norbert -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
* Norbert Tretkowski [Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:35:18 +0100]: * Adeodato Simó wrote: Hi Nobse, I asked upstream about your bug, and this was his answer: Are you sure the header cache was being used? The version was bumped so mutt was probably ignoring your old cache. Try removing the cache files and then opening your mailbox twice. And: 01:58 brendan 351220 I suspect is simply the header cache not being used. the cache probably needs to be removed by hand... 05:10 dato brendan: submitter of 351220 is generally clued, but I'll check with him that the cache is really being used. Yes, the header cache is used. I checked again... with 1.5.11-5, opening a folder which contains 1800 mails the first time takes 25 seconds, when opening the second time it takes 2 seconds. After upgrading to 1.5.11+cvs20060126-1, opening the same folder the first time takes 24 seconds, and 12 seconds when opening the folder the second time. I tested this on three different machines (2x unstable, 1x sarge with mutt backports). All against the same IMAP server? Can you try against some other, or with maildirs in the local filesystem? I've done tests with 4 Mutt binaries (1.5.11-5 and 1.5.11+cvs20060126-1, both with libdb and gdbm), and I see no important differences among them (no variation between versions; wrt database backend, same as always: gdbm a biiit slower when creating the db, a biiit faster when reading it). I've tried it with [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bincimap) with a folder of 1400 messages, and with a local maildir with 10200 messages. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Listening to: Pasión Vega - Lejos de Lisboa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
* Norbert Tretkowski [Sun, 05 Feb 2006 19:33:28 +0100]: Hmm... imap or imaps? imaps. -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
* Adeodato Simó wrote: * Norbert Tretkowski [Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:35:18 +0100]: I tested this on three different machines (2x unstable, 1x sarge with mutt backports). All against the same IMAP server? Yes, courier-imap from sarge. Can you try against some other, or with maildirs in the local filesystem? I tried it with a local Maildir, it's fast. Seems to be a problem with imap. I've done tests with 4 Mutt binaries (1.5.11-5 and 1.5.11+cvs20060126-1, both with libdb and gdbm), and I see no important differences among them (no variation between versions; wrt database backend, same as always: gdbm a biiit slower when creating the db, a biiit faster when reading it). I've tried it with [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bincimap) with a folder of 1400 messages, and with a local maildir with 10200 messages. Hmm... imap or imaps? Regards, Norbert
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
On Sunday, 05 February 2006 at 19:33, Norbert Tretkowski wrote: * Adeodato Simó wrote: * Norbert Tretkowski [Sun, 05 Feb 2006 07:35:18 +0100]: I tested this on three different machines (2x unstable, 1x sarge with mutt backports). All against the same IMAP server? Yes, courier-imap from sarge. Can you try against some other, or with maildirs in the local filesystem? I tried it with a local Maildir, it's fast. Seems to be a problem with imap. I've done tests with 4 Mutt binaries (1.5.11-5 and 1.5.11+cvs20060126-1, both with libdb and gdbm), and I see no important differences among them (no variation between versions; wrt database backend, same as always: gdbm a biiit slower when creating the db, a biiit faster when reading it). I've tried it with [EMAIL PROTECTED] (bincimap) with a folder of 1400 messages, and with a local maildir with 10200 messages. Hmm... imap or imaps? Would you be willing to try imap as well as imaps? (blowing away the caches each time). It'd help narrow down the places I'd have to look.
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
Are you sure the header cache was being used? The version was bumped so mutt was probably ignoring your old cache. Try removing the cache files and then opening your mailbox twice. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
Hi Nobse, I asked upstream about your bug, and this was his answer: Are you sure the header cache was being used? The version was bumped so mutt was probably ignoring your old cache. Try removing the cache files and then opening your mailbox twice. And: 01:58 brendan 351220 I suspect is simply the header cache not being used. the cache probably needs to be removed by hand... 05:10 dato brendan: submitter of 351220 is generally clued, but I'll check with him that the cache is really being used. Cheers, -- Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right. -- Isaac Asimov -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#351220: is the header cache being used?
* Adeodato Simó wrote: Hi Nobse, I asked upstream about your bug, and this was his answer: Are you sure the header cache was being used? The version was bumped so mutt was probably ignoring your old cache. Try removing the cache files and then opening your mailbox twice. And: 01:58 brendan 351220 I suspect is simply the header cache not being used. the cache probably needs to be removed by hand... 05:10 dato brendan: submitter of 351220 is generally clued, but I'll check with him that the cache is really being used. Yes, the header cache is used. I checked again... with 1.5.11-5, opening a folder which contains 1800 mails the first time takes 25 seconds, when opening the second time it takes 2 seconds. After upgrading to 1.5.11+cvs20060126-1, opening the same folder the first time takes 24 seconds, and 12 seconds when opening the folder the second time. I tested this on three different machines (2x unstable, 1x sarge with mutt backports). Norbert
