On Tue, Apr 27, 2004 at 09:53:05AM +0200, Richard Lyons wrote:
| On Monday 26 April 2004 23:49, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
| > On Sun, Apr 25, 2004 at 02:16:13PM +0530, Deboo wrote:
| > > What is the best way to use such big mailboxes? I
| > > do not like to convert to maildirs, I'm using mbox format.
| > > Though I heard that maildir is faster, isn't it harder to backup or
| > > carry around? Just a single mbox file is easy to carry if need be.
| > > But anyway, what's the best way to use large mailbixes?
| >
| > Well if its a large mail box then you are more than likely going to
| > need to process the mbox file using say bzip2 or gzip before moving
| > it around. Using maildir just means you call tar instead (which will
| > call bzip2 or gzip for you given a command line flag); so I don't
| > think its any harder to use.
| >
| > The best way is Maildir, with a header caching patch.
|
| Surely maildir also uses massively more disk space? All those thousands
| of small files. Or am I misunderstanding something?
That depends. The amount of data is no different (you still have the
same messages in both formats). The difference is how efficiently the
files use the inodes. If you have a large block size and small
messages, then yes you'll have wasted space. If you have larger
messages or a smaller block size then you'll have less wasted space
(but make sure you have enough inodes on the filesystem).
Like everything, its a tradeoff.
-D
--
Stay away from a foolish man,
for you will not find knowledge on his lips.
Proverbs 14:7
www: http://dman13.dyndns.org/~dman/ jabber: dman@dman13.dyndns.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature