[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       imap
Subject:    [Imap-protocol] Re: Multiappend
From:       Mark Crispin <mrc () cac ! washington ! edu>
Date:       2007-10-31 15:56:12
Message-ID: alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710310825570.20419 () pangtzu ! panda ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:
> if I understand you correctly, you're saying that one should use multiappend 
> to transfer an entire mailbox with one command.

Yes.  We use this functionality.  A lot.

> I was afraid that someone might do that, so I didn't implement multiappend. I 
> know people whose average mailbox size is 200MB (no idea what the top decile 
> looks like ;) and transactions that large could be a problem. Single IMAP 
> commands that large could be a problem, too. My code would have real problems 
> with it.

I can understand the problem your implementation.  In my implementation, 
lots of little transfers are far more harmful for the server than one big 
one.  The RTTs, the vastly increased number of error points, and having to 
do the overhead of APPEND per message (check out, lock, append, unlock, 
check in) is devastating.

I will insist that multiappend be in the base of any IMAP5.  It was an 
oversight that it was not there in the first place.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.
_______________________________________________
Imap-protocol mailing list
Imap-protocol@u.washington.edu
https://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/imap-protocol
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]