[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 02:49:01PM +0100, Julian Hall wrote: > james kilty wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-06-29 at 18:14 +0100, Simon Waters wrote: > > > > > >> Whilst it may be wasteful, overuse of attachments is almost invariably > >> the cause of email bloat, which itself is usually a sign of a lack of > >> document managed tools and processes. > >> > > Yes - their intranet is appalling and largely ignored. My wife has > > argued for documents to be available there. > > James > > > IIRC attachments take up 30-50% more space than the original document. Well, they’ll be base64-encoded most of the time, which apparently takes about 37% more space. > Even small ones would cause issues then because they will use the HD > clusters much less efficiently than larger files - which to be fair > should be detached as well anyway. Not necessarily; depends on the filesystem (for a start, it’s possible to optimise filesystems for lots of small files, as might be the case on a mailserver; also more recent filesystems are more efficient at packing smaller files, I believe). -- Benjamin M. A’Lee || mail: bma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx web: http://bma.subvert.org.uk/ || gpg: 0x166891C7 “i like .net for the same reason i like gentoo. it keeps all the people with no clue from writing c code, which is much harder for me to identify and eliminate from my systems. in the same way that gentoo gives those people a place to be that isn’t in debian” — andrew suffield
Attachment:
pgp1s0uvZdJjN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html