Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-04 Thread Scott Haneda
On Oct 3, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Chris Hilts wrote: > Scott Haneda wrote: >> Nice stats, thanks. I am strongly looking into Dovecot with maildir >> format, anyone care to comment on that? I know it is still in beta, >> but it seems solid, abd builds clean on OS X in test so far. > Can't comment on Do

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-04 Thread Tomas Kuliavas
> Hi Tomas, > > You give some sort times for several IMAP servers, do you happen to have > sort times for Dovecot?? Not yet. Dovecot supports many different mailbox formats and I haven't profiled it. -- Tomas - This SF.Net

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-04 Thread Chris Hilts
Scott Haneda wrote: > Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server > which support IMAP. > > SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail in a > single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into the server, and > select a mailbox, one in which I fee

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-04 Thread Tomas Kuliavas
> Hi Tomas, > > You give some sort times for several IMAP servers, do you happen to have > sort times for Dovecot?? Dovecot mbox mailbox with 5k messages SELECT time - 4,35 ms Caching difference - 2702,9 ms SORT FROM - 242 ms Dovecot maildir mailbox with 5k messages SELECT time - 8,64 ms Caching

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-03 Thread Chris Hilts
Scott Haneda wrote: > Nice stats, thanks. I am strongly looking into Dovecot with maildir > format, anyone care to comment on that? I know it is still in beta, > but it seems solid, abd builds clean on OS X in test so far. Can't comment on Dovcecot, but on the other end of things I'd highly r

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-03 Thread Scott Haneda
Nice stats, thanks. I am strongly looking into Dovecot with maildir format, anyone care to comment on that? I know it is still in beta, but it seems solid, abd builds clean on OS X in test so far. On Oct 3, 2008, at 4:34 AM, Tomas Kuliavas wrote: > Select times for mailbox with 5000 message

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-03 Thread Richard Hall
Hi Tomas, You give some sort times for several IMAP servers, do you happen to have sort times for Dovecot?? Redards, -Rich On Fri, October 3, 2008 05:34, Tomas Kuliavas wrote: > > > Jesse Michaels wrote: >> >> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server >> which support IMA

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-03 Thread Tomas Kuliavas
Jesse Michaels wrote: > > Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server > which support IMAP. > > SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail in a > single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into the server, and > select a mailbox, one in whi

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Scott Haneda
On Oct 1, 2008, at 9:58 PM, Karl Pearson wrote: >> And the EIMS developer showed surprising ignorance regarding this >> fact. That's the biggest sign to me that you need to find a better >> IMAP server. > > Might I suggest switching to Dovecot. I don't know if it's possible, > but > when I made

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Scott Haneda
On Oct 1, 2008, at 7:45 PM, Paul Lesniewski wrote: >> Not off the top of my head. It's been a long time since I've delved >> into it, my Real Life has really slammed my development time. > > If you insist on keeping enormous INBOXes (bad form IMO), try > SquirrelMail 1.5.2, where header fetching

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Karl Pearson
On Wed, 1 Oct 2008, Paul Lesniewski wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Chris Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Scott Haneda wrote: 3 seconds just to tell you how many messages there are. Now imagine how long it takes to fetch headers. >>> >>> I know, I feel it is slow as well. >

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Paul Lesniewski
On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Chris Hilts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Scott Haneda wrote: >>> 3 seconds just to tell you how many messages there are. Now imagine how >>> long it takes to fetch headers. >> >> I know, I feel it is slow as well. Your response doesn't indicate you understood what

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Chris Hilts
Scott Haneda wrote: >> 3 seconds just to tell you how many messages there are. Now imagine how >> long it takes to fetch headers. > > I know, I feel it is slow as well. To better help me get this into > perspective, what hardware examples can you give me as for cpu and > drives, and how many mes

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Scott Haneda
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Chris Hilts wrote: > Scott Haneda wrote: >> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server >> which support IMAP. >> >> SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail >> in a >> single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into t

Re: [SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Scott Haneda
On Oct 1, 2008, at 6:06 PM, Chris Hilts wrote: > Scott Haneda wrote: >> Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server >> which support IMAP. >> >> SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail >> in a >> single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into t

[SM-USERS] performance issues that seemingly can not be solved.

2008-10-01 Thread Scott Haneda
Hello, I am running SquirrelMail 1.4.16, against EIMS Mail Server which support IMAP. SquirrelMail is very slow at loading mailboxes. EIMS stores mail in a single file, like UW IMAP server. If I telnet into the server, and select a mailbox, one in which I feel it is not that large, perhaps