headers
dv1445 | 11 May 00:04
Favicon

speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

Hello,

1.5.17 with header caching enabled.  I've got read_inc and write_inc set to 1000.  Nevertheless, I've
noticed that the process of evaluating the cache (when I switch into a big folder) is significantly slower
when I use Terminal.app than if I use xterm/rxvt over Apple's X11.

This is puzzling, since I thought caching has nothing to do with the terminal choice.  Anybody know why this
would be, and/or how I can do something about it?

FWIW: I built using the BerkeleyDB libraries, since the other choices refuse to work with OSX.  (Actually, I
finally got mutt to build with gdb, but mutt behaved *really* weird with screen-drawing, so gdb is a no-go
on OSX).

Thanks.
-gmn
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Sahil Tandon | 11 May 00:14

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

* dv1445 <at> wayne.edu <dv1445 <at> wayne.edu> [05-10-2008]:

> 1.5.17 with header caching enabled.  I've got read_inc and write_inc 
> set to 1000.  Nevertheless, I've noticed that the process of 
> evaluating the cache (when I switch into a big folder) is 
> significantly slower when I use Terminal.app than if I use xterm/rxvt 
> over Apple's X11.

I run Mutt 1.5.17 via Terminal.app (on Leopard) with no such speed 
issues.  I installed via macports.

--

-- 
Sahil Tandon <sahil <at> tandon.net>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Ebert | 11 May 08:28
X-Face
Picon

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

* dv1445 <at> wayne.edu on Saturday, May 10, 2008 at 18:07:04 -0400
> 1.5.17 with header caching enabled.  I've got read_inc and
> write_inc set to 1000.  Nevertheless, I've noticed that the
> process of evaluating the cache (when I switch into a big
> folder) is significantly slower when I use Terminal.app than if
> I use xterm/rxvt over Apple's X11.

I never experienced that. Overall xterm might behave crisper,
because Terminal.app is slow -- but not only for mutt.

I do however notice slowness right after starting mutt (cold
cache???), but then it runs fine.

> FWIW: I built using the BerkeleyDB libraries, since the other
> choices refuse to work with OSX.  (Actually, I finally got mutt
> to build with gdb, but mutt behaved *really* weird with
> screen-drawing, so gdb is a no-go on OSX).

I always used and use qdbm w/o prob. Both qdbm and mutt build
just fine on 10.4.11. Also fink's mutt ships with qdbm. If with
"gdb" you mean GNU dbm I once built mutt against gdbm from fink,
again w/o without having the issues you describe.

c
--

-- 
Python Mutt utilities <http://www.blacktrash.org/hg/muttils/>
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Kyle Wheeler | 11 May 17:36

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?


On Saturday, May 10 at 06:07 PM, quoth dv1445 <at> wayne.edu:
> 1.5.17 with header caching enabled.  I've got read_inc and write_inc 
> set to 1000.  Nevertheless, I've noticed that the process of 
> evaluating the cache (when I switch into a big folder) is 
> significantly slower when I use Terminal.app than if I use 
> xterm/rxvt over Apple's X11.

That's why they recently added $time_inc (it's not in a released 
version of mutt yet; just in the current development tree). Here's the  
description from the development manual:

     Along with "read_inc", "write_inc", and "net_inc", this variable
     controls  the  frequency  with  which  progress updates are dis-
     played. It suppresses updates less than "time_inc"  milliseconds
     apart.  This  can improve throughput on systems with slow termi-
     nals, or when running mutt on a remote system.

> This is puzzling, since I thought caching has nothing to do with the 
> terminal choice.  Anybody know why this would be, and/or how I can 
> do something about it?

Caching doesn't have anything to do with the terminal choice, BUT 
since mutt is single-threaded, it can be slowed down by anything that 
requires updating the display. No operations in mutt can happen at the 
same time, so mutt has to pause what it's doing (e.g. caching) to 
update the terminal. If the terminal is slow, that pause can take 
longer, and will make the total action take longer.

Put another way, the length of time required to do a given complex
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Vladimir Marek | 13 May 17:33
Picon
Favicon

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

[...]
> That's why they recently added $time_inc (it's not in a released 
> version of mutt yet; just in the current development tree). Here's the  
> description from the development manual:

Sweet. My INBOX opens nearly instantaneously now. And I thought that
it's the hcache being slow.

Thank you
--

-- 
	Vlad
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rocco Rutte | 15 May 16:16
Picon

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

Hi,

* dv1445 <at> wayne.edu wrote:

>FWIW: I built using the BerkeleyDB libraries, since the other choices 
>refuse to work with OSX.  (Actually, I finally got mutt to build with 
>gdb, but mutt behaved *really* weird with screen-drawing, so gdb is a 
>no-go on OSX).

How do you do that exactly? qdbm and gdbm are the only ones I found 
working on OS X via macports. For bdb there's a ticket open that it 
doesn't even compile:

   http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2978

Rocco
Permalink | Reply |
headers
dv1445 | 20 May 22:33
Favicon

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

Thus spake Rocco Rutte [05/15/08 @ 16.16.10 +0200]:
> * dv1445 <at> wayne.edu wrote:
>> FWIW: I built using the BerkeleyDB libraries, since the other choices 
>> refuse to work with OSX.  (Actually, I finally got mutt to build with gdb, 
>> but mutt behaved *really* weird with screen-drawing, so gdb is a no-go on 
>> OSX).
>
> How do you do that exactly? qdbm and gdbm are the only ones I found working 
> on OS X via macports. For bdb there's a ticket open that it doesn't even 
> compile:
>
>   http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2978
>

I just downloaded the source and built.  I don't use macports at all.  BerkeleyDB compiles flawlessly on
Panther and Tiger for me.

http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/berkeley-db/db/index.html

-gmn
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Rocco Rutte | 21 May 09:18
Picon

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

Hi,

* dv1445 <at> wayne.edu wrote:
>Thus spake Rocco Rutte [05/15/08 @ 16.16.10 +0200]:

>>   http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2978

>I just downloaded the source and built.  I don't use macports at all.  BerkeleyDB compiles flawlessly on
Panther and Tiger for me.

Good, thanks for the feedback.

Rocco
Permalink | Reply |
headers
dv1445 | 23 May 21:29
Favicon

Re: speed of cacheing depends on terminal?

Thus spake Rocco Rutte [05/21/08 @ 09.18.56 +0200]:
>
> * dv1445 <at> wayne.edu wrote:
>> Thus spake Rocco Rutte [05/15/08 @ 16.16.10 +0200]:
>
>>>   http://dev.mutt.org/trac/ticket/2978
>
>> I just downloaded the source and built.  I don't use macports at all.  BerkeleyDB compiles flawlessly on
Panther and Tiger for me.
>
> Good, thanks for the feedback.

Just to be clear, it's BerkeleyDB version 4.5 that works flawlessly.  I haven't yet tried anything newer.
-gmn
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane