On Monday 28 February 2005 14:26, sean finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i came up with the number by totalling the mailbox sizes of a 3000 user
> mail system, and then dividing by the total number of messages in these
> mailboxes. this generated a number around 13k average message size.
> i had
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 09:54:09AM -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I
On Sat, 2005-03-19 at 09:54 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I have se
Scripsit Gunnar Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Some people tend to have really large inboxes. I have had a number of
>> customers that have several GB inbox. They tend to get quite a lot
>> of attachments (reports etc) and do not have the time to delete mail.
>> It will grow quite fast.
> Ummm... An
Ola Lundqvist dijo [Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 09:18:33PM +0100]:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larg
On Thu, 2005-03-17 at 20:12 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:36:21PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2005-02
Hello
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 02:36:21PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > >
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:45 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 16 Mars 2005 21:36, Ron Johnson a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > > Hello
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Sa
Am 2005-03-16 21:18:33, schrieb Ola Lundqvist:
> Hello
> Some people tend to have really large inboxes. I have had a number of
> customers that have several GB inbox. They tend to get quite a lot
> of attachments (reports etc) and do not have the time to delete mail.
> It will grow quite fast.
Yo
Le Mer 16 Mars 2005 21:36, Ron Johnson a Ãcrit :
> On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> > Hello
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > Hello.
> > > >
> > > > I have several repor
On Wed, 2005-03-16 at 21:18 +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hello
>
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > >
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larger t
Hello
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Hello.
> >
> > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > larger than 2GB. Questions:
>
> OT here, but WTF are people smoking, to have 2G
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 22:55 +0100, David Schmitt wrote:
> On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> [snip]
> > > figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
> >
> > That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir
On Monday 28 February 2005 01:51, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
[snip]
> > figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
>
> That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
> average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, the
Am 2005-02-28 02:43:45, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> > Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged...
>
> The same person with the 2GB mbox that started this thread, after
> s/he neglected it for a few more months.
:-/
Oh yes,
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 09:25 +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Am 2005-02-27 20:19:09, schrieb Ron Johnson:
>
> > Sure, for those *20* GB mbox files.
>
> Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged...
The same person with the 2GB mbox that started this thread, after
s/he neglected it
Am 2005-02-27 20:19:09, schrieb Ron Johnson:
> Sure, for those *20* GB mbox files.
Who has 20 GByte mailboxes ? - It is realy braindamaged...
Even on xfs, open a 20 GByte Mailbox will eat up all resources
on the System
Greetings
Michelle
--
Linux-User #280138 with the Linux Counter, http://
Am 2005-02-27 18:19:45, schrieb sean finney:
> can't help but chime in here :)
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> > Not every situation warrants using maildir, it uses a large number of
> > inodes, is slow to scan (yes, mbox isn't very good either),
Mailbox is MUCH slo
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 22:26 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
> > average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there are no html mails.
> > Though, even in my Evolution list archive,
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
> average size is 4,959 bytes. Of course, there are no html mails.
> Though, even in my Evolution list archive, where there are many
> more html-mails, the average size is
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 20:54 -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > > Of course, all of these factors depend on the file system used. I am
> > > > confident somebody could point out a file-system that eliminates many
> >
> > Reiserfs, of cou
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > Of course, all of these factors depend on the file system used. I am
> > > confident somebody could point out a file-system that eliminates many
>
> Reiserfs, of course.
You meant XFS, right?
(Sorry, couldn't be helped. :)
--
On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 11:54 +1100, Paul Hampson wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > > recent versions of kernel/ext2/ext3 have built-in dirent hashing, which
> > > cuts heavily on the many-files penalty.
On Sun, Feb 27, 2005 at 06:51:32PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> > recent versions of kernel/ext2/ext3 have built-in dirent hashing, which
> > cuts heavily on the many-files penalty. another benefit of maildir
> > is that when you modify a sing
On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 18:19 -0500, sean finney wrote:
> can't help but chime in here :)
>
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
[snip]
>
> figuring the average email is about 13-15k, i believe an ext2/ext3
That seems awfully huge. In my (Maildir) archive of d-u, the
avera
can't help but chime in here :)
On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:22:30AM +1100, Brian May wrote:
> Not every situation warrants using maildir, it uses a large number of
> inodes, is slow to scan (yes, mbox isn't very good either),
> inefficient at storing large number of very small files (due to block
>
> "Colin" == Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Colin> Not everyone likes maildir; I gave up on it after
Colin> experimenting with it and realising that making it harder
Colin> for myself to use standard Unix text-processing tools on my
Colin> mailboxes was just too annoy
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 12:59:49PM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > The version in experimental has -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and it works
> > > on files larger than 2GB, but I have only tested it on the i386
> > > architecture.
> > Please use the value
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > The version in experimental has -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64, and it works
> > on files larger than 2GB, but I have only tested it on the i386
> > architecture.
>
> Please use the value of $(getconf LFS_CFLAGS) instead; it appears (based on
> past exim4 bu
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 04:27:48AM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 10:23 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > > I have several reports saying procmail does no
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 10:23 +, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > > larger than 2GB. Questions:
> >
> > OT
On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 07:45:47PM -0600, Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> > I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> > larger than 2GB. Questions:
>
> OT here, but WTF are people smoking, to have 2GB mbox files?
Consider
On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 00:53 +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> larger than 2GB. Questions:
OT here, but WTF are people smoking, to have 2GB mbox files?
--
---
Hi Santiago,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 12:53:40AM +0100, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
> larger than 2GB. Questions:
> * Am I right to think that adding -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to CFLAGS
> should be enough to fix this, as explained by thi
Hello.
I have several reports saying procmail does not support mbox folders
larger than 2GB. Questions:
* Am I right to think that adding -D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 to CFLAGS
should be enough to fix this, as explained by this URL?:
http://www.suse.de/~aj/linux_lfs.html
The version in experimental h
35 matches
Mail list logo
