[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again
From: |
Ken Hornstein |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:42:08 -0400 |
>So some of us are seeing 10+ second scans locally.
>
>I really need to upgrade to a 500G SSD. :) (which I guess answers the
>"is it reasonable/tolerable" question :)
I feel it's only fair to point out that 10 seconds was across the
Atlantic Ocean. To the same server a few states away, that same scan
took me half a second.
Okay, to be fair, it would be more accurate to say that retrieving all
of the data needed to do that scan too a half a second. There is still all
of the processing nmh needed to do. It would be intersting to see how
much overhead that adds.
--Ken
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, (continued)
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/26
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ken Hornstein, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, valdis . kletnieks, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again,
Ken Hornstein <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/10/27
- Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, valdis . kletnieks, 2017/10/27
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Ralph Corderoy, 2017/10/27
Re: [Nmh-workers] IMAP/nmh, again, Michael Richardson, 2017/10/26