On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:29:57 +0000, Greg Lee wrote: > On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:01:59 +0000, Frederik Himpe wrote: > >> I am using x86_64 bit Linux on an Athlon 64 3500. >> >> Any idea how I could debug this? > > No, but I do see all these problems, and I'm also using x86_64 Linux. > Before I started using Pan, I was using Tin, which is considerably worse > than Pan at doing comparable things. Also, Tin would use all my > system's memory, which Pan does not do.
I cannot really imagine how another application can be still be "considerably worse" than this. I just tried filtering for CFS in one month of linux kernel mailing list, and I killed it again after several minutes of 100% CPU time. Pan has become completely unusable for me now: it was certainly not like that before, otherwise I would never used it for months without noticing and complaining... Could it be a regression in 0.132? -- Frederik Himpe _______________________________________________ Pan-users mailing list Pan-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
