119 lines
4.9 KiB
Plaintext
119 lines
4.9 KiB
Plaintext
From exmh-workers-admin@redhat.com Mon Aug 26 23:40:32 2002
|
|
Return-Path: <exmh-workers-admin@example.com>
|
|
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.netnoteinc.com
|
|
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
|
|
by phobos.labs.netnoteinc.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EB0844155
|
|
for <jm@localhost>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:40:28 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Received: from phobos [127.0.0.1]
|
|
by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
|
|
for jm@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:40:28 +0100 (IST)
|
|
Received: from listman.example.com (listman.example.com [66.187.233.211]) by
|
|
dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g7QMdLZ12693 for
|
|
<jm-exmh@jmason.org>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 23:39:22 +0100
|
|
Received: from listman.example.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by
|
|
listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40FD23FBDF; Mon, 26 Aug 2002
|
|
18:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
|
|
Delivered-To: exmh-workers@listman.example.com
|
|
Received: from int-mx1.corp.example.com (int-mx1.corp.example.com
|
|
[172.16.52.254]) by listman.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CF8E40269
|
|
for <exmh-workers@listman.redhat.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:34:59 -0400
|
|
(EDT)
|
|
Received: (from mail@localhost) by int-mx1.corp.example.com (8.11.6/8.11.6)
|
|
id g7QMYtf01202 for exmh-workers@listman.redhat.com; Mon, 26 Aug 2002
|
|
18:34:55 -0400
|
|
Received: from mx1.example.com (mx1.example.com [172.16.48.31]) by
|
|
int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id g7QMYtY01198 for
|
|
<exmh-workers@redhat.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:34:55 -0400
|
|
Received: from milou.dyndns.org (h189n1fls22o974.telia.com
|
|
[213.64.79.189]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id
|
|
g7QMK1l18661 for <exmh-workers@redhat.com>; Mon, 26 Aug 2002 18:20:01
|
|
-0400
|
|
Received: by milou.dyndns.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 0009A3F21;
|
|
Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:34:48 +0200 (CEST)
|
|
Received: from tippex.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
|
|
milou.dyndns.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF7513F20 for
|
|
<exmh-workers@redhat.com>; Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:34:48 +0200 (CEST)
|
|
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5_20020826 01/15/2001 with nmh-1.0.4
|
|
To: exmh-workers@example.com
|
|
Subject: Re: Exmh && speed
|
|
In-Reply-To: Message from Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu of
|
|
"Mon, 26 Aug 2002 14:22:46 EDT."
|
|
<200208261822.g7QIMk7P005756@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
|
|
MIME-Version: 1.0
|
|
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
|
From: Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@fastmail.fm>
|
|
Message-Id: <20020826223448.0009A3F21@milou.dyndns.org>
|
|
X-Loop: exmh-workers@example.com
|
|
Sender: exmh-workers-admin@example.com
|
|
Errors-To: exmh-workers-admin@example.com
|
|
X-Beenthere: exmh-workers@example.com
|
|
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.1
|
|
Precedence: bulk
|
|
List-Help: <mailto:exmh-workers-request@example.com?subject=help>
|
|
List-Post: <mailto:exmh-workers@example.com>
|
|
List-Subscribe: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-workers>,
|
|
<mailto:exmh-workers-request@redhat.com?subject=subscribe>
|
|
List-Id: Discussion list for EXMH developers <exmh-workers.example.com>
|
|
List-Unsubscribe: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-workers>,
|
|
<mailto:exmh-workers-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe>
|
|
List-Archive: <https://listman.example.com/mailman/private/exmh-workers/>
|
|
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 00:34:43 +0200
|
|
X-Pyzor: Reported 0 times.
|
|
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=7.0
|
|
tests=IN_REP_TO,KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,
|
|
SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,X_LOOP
|
|
version=2.40-cvs
|
|
X-Spam-Level:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cwg-dated-1030817858.a49b7e@DeepEddy.Com said:
|
|
> From: Anders Eriksson <aeriksson@fastmail.fm>
|
|
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 20:00:36 +0200 >
|
|
>
|
|
> lately I've got the feeling that exmh is getting slower and slower. I
|
|
> just decided to check that vs. reality, and yes, speed has left the
|
|
> scene somewhere between the release of 2.5 and now.
|
|
>
|
|
> I checked on a number of small messages in a big folder (~10000
|
|
> msgs). The delay of the Next button has increased considerably:
|
|
>
|
|
> 2.5-release: 350-450 msec
|
|
> latest cvs: 1000-12000 msec
|
|
>
|
|
> Frankly I think this is getting close to non-acceptable since the
|
|
> user settings hasn't changed.
|
|
>
|
|
> Anybody have any ideas where performance disappeared?
|
|
> Most likely in the added overhead of managing more sequences.
|
|
> I'm sure it can be tuned a bunch, but as I'm leaving for a vacation on
|
|
> Friday, and have plenty of "real work" to do, I won't be able to do
|
|
> much until I get back.
|
|
|
|
> I *will* look at all this when I get back, but if you want to check
|
|
> into what's slow and fix things while I'm gone, my feelings won't be
|
|
> hurt.
|
|
|
|
> Chris
|
|
|
|
Just one more info. I measured the time spent wrapping the stuff in
|
|
Ftoc_Next with time {} so the data is for real. One difference
|
|
between mine and Valdis' setup (judging from his trace) is that I use
|
|
the address book. I've been doing that for ages so that can't be the
|
|
problem.
|
|
|
|
Is there a way to get the log to print time with higher granularity?
|
|
|
|
/A
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
_______________________________________________
|
|
Exmh-workers mailing list
|
|
Exmh-workers@redhat.com
|
|
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/exmh-workers
|
|
|