On Fri, Sep 01, 2006 at 07:44:00AM +0100, Wulfy wrote: > >PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND > >18782 foo 15 0 3360 3356 1704 S 0.0 2.6 0:04 0 mutt > > > >This is one huge advantage of Mutt. The memory footprint is > >unbelievably small, particularly in light of how much power it offers. > > > > > But that is not a fair comparison with T-bird... what about all the > other programs you must use to get the same functionality? Oh, very well... PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME CPU COMMAND 18782 foo 15 0 3360 3356 1704 S 0.0 2.6 0:04 0 mutt 9019 smmsp 15 0 560 124 24 S 0.0 0.0 0:00 0 sendmail 19462 foo 25 0 668 668 584 S 0.1 0.5 0:00 0 procmail 19270 foo 15 0 2608 2608 1736 S 0.0 2.0 0:00 0 vim I had to force a procmail to run long enough to catch by running a fairly large mailbox through it using formail. I suspect to do a single message (the normal usage case) the footprint would be smaller. But no matter. Even at that, we're talking about a WHOPPING 7MB of TOTAL memory usage, including my editor, the sendmail submission daemon, mutt, and procmail. RSS of a little more than 4MB. Oh, yes... I do run sendmail on the machine, so there are listener daemons that are using some memory too. But they don't count, because this machine actually IS my mail server, and you don't have those in Tbird. Mutt is compiled with pop and IMAP support, even though I don't actually use them (the theory being I might need them someday, and don't want to have to recompile in that event). And yes, mutt can retrieve mail. But it's better if you use fetchmail, if you want to do filtering, which can pipe the messages through procmail. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
Attachment:
pgpkGrs2A56cQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature