Re: Why is KMail so memory-hungry?

On Sunday 20 December 2009 05:30:11 Art Alexion wrote:
> On Friday 18 December 2009 16:57:54 Peter wrote:
> > Hi Bill,
> >
> > Yes, I have found the same problem. If my computer is very slow, in any
> >  app, I look at system monitor, and it is always KMail, either chewing up
> >  CPU or memory.
> >
> > I use Ubuntu 9.04
> >
> > It often crashes, especially after I do a search, and then looses all
> >  current flags (mail read, fowarded,etc).  Not real impressed with the
> >  memory management side of things.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > On Friday 18 December 2009 23:53:20 bill purvis wrote:
> > > I've been using KMail for a few years now, and recently upgraded my
> > > OS (Ubuntu) to 9.10. Everything seems to have expanded and in
> > > particular KMail! My poor laptop is only 512MB of real memory and is
> > > spending most of its time thrashing stuff to swap-space. Does KMail
> > > load the whole of my admittedly large collection of old emails into
> > > memory?
> > >
> > > I've just spent the whole morning trying to respond to a few emails.
> > > I get long delays - 5 minutes is not unusual just moving a message
> > > from my inbox into another folder. I've just spent the past hour
> > > pursuading KMail to send someone an email - four times it crashed out
> > > saying that the smtp process had unexpectedly died. retrieve the
> > > message from the outbox, null edit, then send again. Eventually it has
> > > managed to send it.
> > >
> > > I do run a 'busy' machine with Firefox, Open Office, Apache, Mysql all
> > > running together, but they're all part of my normal work and it all
> > > worked fine under Ubuntu 8.04.
> > >
> > > I have been using 'top' to see what is going on, and see that KMail
> > > uses far more real memory than anything else - typical RSS=180m
> > > while other 'large' users are taking around 20m.
> > >
> > > I know that the solution is going to be - 'add more memory' but
> > > I feel that is a cop-out. I'm getting a new laptop for Christmas and
> > > that will get around the current state, but if things carry on
> > > expanding we'll all have to upgrade the hardware more often!
> > >
> > > Sorry if this just appears to be a long grumble, but I would appreciate
> > > some positive feedback on why KMail should be so demanding.
>
> Could indeed be a RAM issue.  With 3.2 GB, KDE 4.3.2 is faster than 3.5.10
> was on this machine.  Stability is comparable.  KDE <4.3 was a disaster,
> though.
>
> So my guess is, with more RAM, KDE 4.3 is more efficient than 3.5, but with
> less, it is less efficient than 3.5.

I have 2Gb RAM , which has been ample for all other applications. I'm 
certainly not going to buy more RAM, just for KMail, that's the approach M$ 
have taken for years, (more ram, faster cpu, more hdd). I have been able to 
run Ubuntu on a P2-350 with 512K ram, and it runs fine, yes a bit slower than 
th 2Gb RAM computer, but there is no way XP or similar could run on a 
p2-350Mhz.

I have noticed KMail re-indexing folders 'more than is necessary". That is, 
where there has been no changes to folders, indexing is still done (or re-
indexing, compacting folders).  Why not take the approach, to only do that 
sort of 'work', and only if, the folders contents have been changed ? I have 
hundreds of folders, as no doubt others also do.

Peter