(*** This bug was imported into bugs.kde.org ***) Package: kmail Version: 1.3.2 (using KDE 2.2.2 ) Severity: normal Installed from: Debian Package 4:2.2.2-11 (3.0) Compiler: gcc version 2.95.4 (Debian prerelease) OS: Linux (i686) release 2.4.17 OS/Compiler notes: kmail has strange behavior when deleting the .indoes or .sorted files especially on big mailboxes where it refuses to start (tested with 900mb inbox) deleting all the mailbox files doesn't make any difference kmail refuses to start. after restarting kde it will start again (when leaving no mailbox files in the mail folder) -- same problem when moving the mail files back again. in general kmail seems to have problems with mixed mailboxes from older versions and mostly crashes. maybe some problem with the swapdisk which is smaller than 900mb but ram on the machine is 512mb so that shouldn't be the cause (Submitted via bugs.kde.org) (Called from KBugReport dialog)
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 20:13 t@inode.at wrote: > > kmail has strange behavior when deleting the .indoes or .sorted files > especially on big mailboxes where it refuses to start (tested with 900mb > inbox) deleting all the mailbox files doesn't make any difference kmail > refuses to start. after restarting kde it will start again (when leaving > no mailbox files in the mail folder) -- same problem when moving the mail > files back again. 900MB is quite huge this might take half an hour or more to regenerate the index file. Maybe we really need a progress indicator for that. > in general kmail seems to have problems with mixed mailboxes from older > versions and mostly crashes. maybe some problem with the swapdisk which is > smaller than 900mb but ram on the machine is 512mb so that shouldn't be > the cause Actually KMail shouldn't read the 900MB into RAM but you can watch this with for example top. Regards Michael Häckel
On Saturday 02 November 2019 00:27:00 matthias tarasiewicz wrote: > > ok after 45minutes it was starting on a 2gig mailbox -- progress > indicators would make everything more clear. > but the strange thing is when having loaded the mailbox every change to > some other folder takes quite some time. maybe some buffering (ram?) could > save time here. We can't keep everything in RAM. Short information for the current folder is kept in RAM. On the other hand if you have enough RAM it should be kept in your disc cache which results in the same. Do you know a mail client that is faster on this as KMail? > looks like the bugs i described are mostly because of .index files missing > or too big mailboxes. isn't there any way to increase performace? Not that many KMail users remove their index files frequently so this is not top priority but some improvement might be possible. Regards Michael Häckel
Replaced t@inode.at with null@kde.org due to bounces by reporter
I read in another bug that the index creation is acutally displayed in a progress bar now.
On Tuesday 29 January 2002 21:32 you wrote: > On Tuesday 29 January 2002 20:13 t@inode.at wrote: > > kmail has strange behavior when deleting the .indoes or .sorted files > > especially on big mailboxes where it refuses to start (tested with 900mb > > inbox) deleting all the mailbox files doesn't make any difference kmail > > refuses to start. after restarting kde it will start again (when leaving > > no mailbox files in the mail folder) -- same problem when moving the > > mail files back again. > > 900MB is quite huge this might take half an hour or more to regenerate the > index file. Maybe we really need a progress indicator for that. > ok after 45minutes it was starting on a 2gig mailbox -- progress indicators would make everything more clear. but the strange thing is when having loaded the mailbox every change to some other folder takes quite some time. maybe some buffering (ram?) could save time here. > > in general kmail seems to have problems with mixed mailboxes from older > > versions and mostly crashes. maybe some problem with the swapdisk which > > is smaller than 900mb but ram on the machine is 512mb so that shouldn't > > be the cause > > Actually KMail shouldn't read the 900MB into RAM but you can watch this > with for example top. > looks like the bugs i described are mostly because of .index files missing or too big mailboxes. isn't there any way to increase performace? greetings matthias tarasiewicz -- you are the media. http://0rf.at (null)