Simon Matter wrote: > > Ken Murchison schrieb: > > > > Simon Matter wrote: > > > > > > I have enabled compilation of idled in my newest RPM but am wondering > > > whether that was a good idea. I have two questions: > > > > > > 1) I was searching the archives and docs but still can't find a > > > description of the advantages and drawbacks when using idled instead of > > > poll. What are the drawback of possible problems I may face when using > > > idled? > > > > Being the guy that wrote idled, I guess I have to answer ;) > > > > The main advantage of idled versus polling is that you get event-driven > > instant notification of message changes (new, delete, flag changes, etc) > > in your client when IDLEing (light load on the server, because it only > > checks the mailbox when told to). With polling, you can can updates as > > fast as 1 sec, but you can beat the crap out of the server if you have a > > lot of users polling that much. > > > > The downside of using idled is that it might not scale well. I haven't > > received any input from a large site using idled. > > > > Keep in mind that idled (or polling) is only used when the client issues > > the IDLE command. The only mainstream client that I'm aware of that > > uses IDLE is Outlook. > > Thanks. So it means it's only interesting in an Outlook environment for > now.
Like I said, Outlook is the only client that I'm aware of that supports IDLE. There may be others which support it that would take advantage of idled. For the most part, I think clients do their own polling via NOOP. -- Kenneth Murchison Oceana Matrix Ltd. Software Engineer 21 Princeton Place 716-662-8973 x26 Orchard Park, NY 14127 --PGP Public Key-- http://www.oceana.com/~ken/ksm.pgp
