Re: [Pan-users] Re: Get new Headers?

[fred]

Duncan wrote:
> fred <address@hidden> posted
> address@hidden, excerpted below, on  Fri, 29 Sep 2006
> 21:58:19 -0500:
>
>   
> > Normally I just highlight the group, right click, get new headers. I
> > checked it against klibido. Same server, only one server. I am getting
> > last 10 days per described method. Maybe mixing pre-patch with patch
> > gotten headers (or maybe operator error). Would the xref thing screw with
> > pan but not klibido? Later patch versions are in the same place as the
> > first patch. See http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=358077
> >     
>
> BTW, how's klibido doing lately and how does pan speed and memory usage
> compare?  I was running klibido for awhile before new-pan came around, but
> haven't used it in awhile as I had other stuff than bunni-news to do, then
> new-pan got good enough I didn't have to worry about it.  Charles has
> asked me (if it's still significantly better performing, then he knows
> there should be some more tricks to find to bring pan into shape, if
> not, then there may or may not be, in addition to the friendly
> competition thing, of course) as he knows I used to run it, but I had to
> say I couldn't give him anything on current klibido as I simply hadn't
> tried it.
>
> To your xref question... I'm not sure whether it would affect klibido or
> not as I'm not sure how it manages downloads, but it's server-side and
> would affect the many clients that track messages using this convenient
> sequential method.  The thing is, while convenient for single-server or
> separate server oriented clients, because xref is server specific, it's
> not so convenient for combined view message tracking.  I know rather less
> about the alternatives tho than I'd like, so can't really do a comparison,
> and while I believe I have a vague understanding of how overviews and xref
> works, without even a vague understanding of the alternatives, I can't say
> how practical they are in terms of tracking, nor how likely it might be
> that klibido uses xref tracking in comparison to the alternatives.
>
> If that makes any sense...  The sort form is I don't know enough about it
> to even venture a half-informed speculation.
>
>   
Referring to klibido 0.2.5 (?or something close) memory should be about 
the same as 0.115.
Download speed seems faster in klibido (same # of connections). I know 
it makes no sense and I have not timed it. Updating headers is much, 
much, faster in klibido. Switching from group to group is also faster. 
But if I run klibido I have to run something else to run text. Stability 
is another issue. About once a month klibido blows up a.b.dvd. Just have 
to delete it and start over(PITA). Disk space on klibido 2.6gb, pan 7.4 
gb same groups subscribed(ok pan has a.c.p.mainboard.asus text). Maybe 
some temp files being stored?  But I "understand" pan's logic or feel a 
lot better than I do klibido.

When I downloaded last 10 days (missing posts problem) everything came 
into line. So I will assume that the operator had a brain fart.

Lazlow