Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 18:04:42 +0200
From: Vladimir Marek <Vladimir.Marek@Oracle.COM>
To: Stewart Smith <stewart@flamingspork.com>
Subject: Re: Alternative (raw) message store (i.e. instead of maildir)
Message-ID: <20120814160442.GO28321@pub.cz.oracle.com>
Mail-Followup-To: Stewart Smith <stewart@flamingspork.com>,
	Ciprian Dorin Craciun <ciprian.craciun@gmail.com>,
	notmuch@notmuchmail.org
References:
 <CA+Tk8fwq2thNeKHgfG-EX0hgR7uyqrSce0ZMOhEJBsz1RVtRqg@mail.gmail.com>
	<20120811094635.GY28321@pub.cz.oracle.com>	<874no613ms.fsf@flamingspork.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <874no613ms.fsf@flamingspork.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org
Precedence: list

> >  - fuse zip stores all changes in memory until unmounted
> >  - fuse zip (and libzip for that matter) creates new temporary file when
> >    updating archive, which takes considerable time when the archive is
> >    very big.
> 
> This isn't much of a hastle if you have maildir per time period and
> archive off. Maybe if you sync flags it may be...

That might be interesting solution, maildir per time period. But still
fuse zip caches all the data until unmounted. So even with just reading
it keeps growing (I hope I'm not accusing fuse zip here, but this is my
understanding form the code). This could be simply alleviated by having
it periodically unmounted and mounted again (perhaps from cron).

> > Of course this solution would have some disadvantages too, but for me
> > the advantages would win. At the moment I'm not sure if I want to
> > continue working on that. Maybe if there would be more interested guys
> 
> I'm *really* tempted to investigate making this work for archived
> mail. Of course, the list of mounted file systems could get insane
> depending on granularity I guess...

Well, if your granularity will be one archive per year of mail, it
should not be that bad ...

-- 
	Vlad