Comment by xnx
2 days ago
I haven't used Thunderbird in a long time, but regularly used Outlook with multi-gigabye .pst files. Surely sqlite on an SSD would be up to the task of handling at least million emails of average size.
2 days ago
I haven't used Thunderbird in a long time, but regularly used Outlook with multi-gigabye .pst files. Surely sqlite on an SSD would be up to the task of handling at least million emails of average size.
> Outlook with multi-gigabye .pst files
What has been your experience? Mine in trying to use and support it is that Outlook is an Exchange client; PSTs are hacks to meet demand, though they work well enough in limited circumstances. Especially PSTs over a LAN connection are a disaster.
The Exchange server hardware was so underpowered (or the software so ill-designed for large mailboxes) that Exchange powered searches would fail, but ones run on the local pst would complete successfully (if slowly). This was on an HDD. SSD would be much faster.
> This was on an HDD. SSD would be much faster.
OT but is that right? SSDs have many advantages but sequential read isn't necessarily one of them. SSDs seek is much faster, but this is ~one file. Throughput can be much faster due to the better interfaces, but is throughput the bottleneck for this kind of search?
2 replies →
I did an internship in IT 20 years ago where we were building/maintaining desktops and other general helpdesk type stuff. I'm pretty sure I remember us having a handful of users with multi-gig pst files, running on 2005 hardware.
Apple Mail.app is 10x better and right there.
I'm primarily a Linux user, but Mail.app is probably the best graphical email client I've ever had the pleasure of using (you can pry mutt from my cold, dead hands).
Yes, I know it's also an GNUStep application