- To: Debian Users <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: Re: Kmail................
- From: Tiago Saboga <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 09:24:14 -0300
- Message-id: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- In-reply-to: <20090723185027.013e98e9@taogypsy> (Charlie's message of "Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:50:27 +1000")
- References: <20090723185027.013e98e9@taogypsy>
Charlie <email@example.com> writes:
> Haven't used Kmail for some months, maybe a year, but decided to try it
> again a couple of days ago.
> It appears to be a huge resource hog, and doesn't respond for some time
> as it does something which I can't detect, sometimes using 20% of my
> CPU and 10% of the RAM.
> I've cut out as many of it's processes as I can but that makes
> no difference to it's slug like operation.
> I'm just curious; wonder - is this what should be expected from
> Kmail from now on, only so that if this is going to be the way it runs,
> I won't waste my time with it again.
I do not use kmail, but but I recommend it and install it for new users,
and normally it has not this kind of problems. But I know two cases
where it can hang:
1) There is a long-standing bug - or feature request: kmail does not
start a new thread when downloading mail, so you have to wait for it to
finish. It can be long if you have lots of mail, or if you pass the mail
2) fam/libfam0 have a bug where it takes all of the cpu; if you have a
multi-core cpu, you may not notice that it's eating up your processing
time, but when kmail may be very slow in this case (it seems to depend
heavily on libfam). I've solved this problem replacing famd by gamin
(and libfam0 by libgamin0).