Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 08:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 21:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > > Your BZ report talks about issues with large newsgroups. > > Indeed. > > > Are you seeing > > the same with large mail folders? > > I don't have any/enough mail folders that compete with the quantity/size > of newsgroups. > > > I have one IMAP folder with over > > 60,000 messages in it and I don't see any sluggishness (maybe a few > > seconds on startup), > > That's not surprising then. Not that I trust the message counts much > anymore (since the sqlite migration fiasco), but the vfolder that > aggregates all of my newsgroups says there are 418389 messages in it > with 418344 unread (i.e. only 5 unread messages -- yeah right). However > I know the difference between read and unread messages is in reality > much much greater than that. Case in point for not trusting the message > count numbers any more. But I digress on to yet another bug. > > Performance in an individual (real) folder is great. Switching from > message to message is quick. It's in vfolders which represent a large > aggregation where the message-to-message performance is sluggish, and of > course, as I have said, startup times after a crash (which is still too > frequent an occurrence unfortunately) is on the order of close to 10 > minutes if not more and when I strace it, it's all reads/writes to the > sqlite db(s). > > > but I don't use Evo for newsgroups. > > You should try it sometime if you want to see the scaling problems. > > I use gmane and nntp for mailing lists instead of getting the mail > delivered here. Doing that really highlights the scaling problems. > > IMHO, the evo developers (especially the ones responsible for its > scalability) should be *required* to use gmane for all of their mailing > lists. Nothing like having to eat your own dogfood to making it taste > good. Some of the vfolder issues and sqlite summary issues have been covered at, http://www.go-evolution.org/Bugzilla_Topics#evolution.5Bdisk-summary.5D They are part of the road-map http://www.go-evolution.org/Evo2.28 and is being worked upon. But am not sure how many would be fixed for 2.28. Thanks, Chenthill. > > b. > > ___ > Evolution-list mailing list > Evolution-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 00:49 +0930, Wayne Sierke wrote: > > You don't happen to be using a 'Sender or Recipients' condition in your > problematic vfolders, do you? Nope. They are just "aggretation" folders so that I don't have to poll a few dozen rss feeds/mailboxes/newsgroups for new items. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 08:02 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> ... as I have said, startup times after a crash (which is still too
> frequent an occurrence unfortunately) is on the order of close to 10
> minutes if not more and when I strace it, it's all reads/writes to the
> sqlite db(s).
You don't happen to be using a 'Sender or Recipients' condition in your
problematic vfolders, do you? I just now raised a report about sluggish
behaviour updating vfolders configured with a "Sender or Recipients"
condition.
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593020
My experience is with imap folders but a quick trial with a usenet
folder seemed to exhibit similar behaviour.
Note that replacing the "Sender or Recipients" condition with separate
"Sender" and "Recipients" conditions has worked for me as a work-around,
if using the "If any conditions are met" selection for "Find
Items" ("or" operator) can be used.
Wayne
___
Evolution-list mailing list
Evolution-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 18:01 +0200, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: > If there are 418389 messages in total, of which 418344 are unread, then > that means you've read 45 of them, doesn't it? LOL. Yeah, that's what the counts are saying. As I have maintained, they are way wrong, have been since the sqlite migration and still are. > You never actually said how > many you did read. Just this group (gmane for list) alone shows "60 unread, 37537 total", so yes, definitely more than 45 read. I'm not going to go through, mailbox by mailbox figuring it all out. I just assume the counts are never right and never trust them. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
2009/8/24 Brian J. Murrell : > On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:03 +0200, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: >> [snip] "...aggregates all of my newsgroups says there are 418389 messages in >> it >> with 418344 unread (i.e. only 5 unread messages -- yeah right). However >> I know the difference bet..." [snip] >> >> This suggests to me like you may have a buggy calculator too, or something. > > Oops. It was 50 instead of 5. Dude. I misread a single order of > magnitude while the real difference should be 2 or 3 orders of magnitude > different. Why are you splitting hairs here? Do you really think this > is constructive? > > b. If there are 418389 messages in total, of which 418344 are unread, then that means you've read 45 of them, doesn't it? You never actually said how many you did read. Jo-Erlend ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:03 +0200, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote: > Peter and Brian: I think you should reserve your angry complaints to > your resellers, if any. Huh? > Brian: Your bug report 582945, is one that requires quite a bit of > work just to reproduce Not at all. Simply subscribe to a bunch of news groups at gmane. Not that difficult. > You say it only affects users with > hundreds of thousands of mails in their inboxes? I'm not sure where the usability tipping point is, but let's say it is a few hundred thousand. > Would you agree that > most people doesn't have several hundred thousand mails in their > inboxes, even the ones that use email on a regular basis? Sure, any that don't use evolution for NNTP as well. > Further, you complain about having reported this bug more than a month > ago and that nothing has happened. However, look at your own bug > report; you suggest that the developer subscribe to a lot of > mailinglists and just build himself a large mailbox in order to > reproduce this "sluggish behaviour" Right. As I said, not very difficult at all, for anyone interested in trying to reproduce it. > You would have to subscribe to > some fairly heavy loaded mailinglists for your inbox to grow to 418k > messages in a month, wouldn't you? No. These are newsgroups, not mailing lists. You subscribe to a group and instantly get the many (tens or hundreds of) thousands of messages that have ever been posted to the list in your summary database. Probably a single subscription to lkml (which I tried once but had to manually remove because it made evo *completely* unusable) would reveal the problems, but I would suggest creeping up to that kind of capacity with just subscribing a number of groups in the tens of thousands counts. > And then the bug hunt is supposed > to begin. For somebody that has worked the vfolder code, I'd imagine finding the hogs would not be terribly difficult. Oprofile would probably be extremely useful here. > I think your expectations are a bit > high, don't you? Look. I don't need your sarcasm. I simply asked if the scalability issues would be fixed by the next release, highlighting a possible usability issue. > Oh, and by the way: > > [snip] "...aggregates all of my newsgroups says there are 418389 messages in > it > with 418344 unread (i.e. only 5 unread messages -- yeah right). However > I know the difference bet..." [snip] > > This suggests to me like you may have a buggy calculator too, or something. Oops. It was 50 instead of 5. Dude. I misread a single order of magnitude while the real difference should be 2 or 3 orders of magnitude different. Why are you splitting hairs here? Do you really think this is constructive? b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
Peter and Brian: I think you should reserve your angry complaints to your resellers, if any. Brian: Your bug report 582945, is one that requires quite a bit of work just to reproduce and the very nature of the bug might prevent it from getting a very high priority. You say it only affects users with hundreds of thousands of mails in their inboxes? Would you agree that most people doesn't have several hundred thousand mails in their inboxes, even the ones that use email on a regular basis? Further, you complain about having reported this bug more than a month ago and that nothing has happened. However, look at your own bug report; you suggest that the developer subscribe to a lot of mailinglists and just build himself a large mailbox in order to reproduce this "sluggish behaviour" You would have to subscribe to some fairly heavy loaded mailinglists for your inbox to grow to 418k messages in a month, wouldn't you? And then the bug hunt is supposed to begin. In the mid of summer. I think your expectations are a bit high, don't you? Oh, and by the way: [snip] "...aggregates all of my newsgroups says there are 418389 messages in it with 418344 unread (i.e. only 5 unread messages -- yeah right). However I know the difference bet..." [snip] This suggests to me like you may have a buggy calculator too, or something. Best wishes, Jo-Erlend Schinstad ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 21:53 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > Your BZ report talks about issues with large newsgroups. Indeed. > Are you seeing > the same with large mail folders? I don't have any/enough mail folders that compete with the quantity/size of newsgroups. > I have one IMAP folder with over > 60,000 messages in it and I don't see any sluggishness (maybe a few > seconds on startup), That's not surprising then. Not that I trust the message counts much anymore (since the sqlite migration fiasco), but the vfolder that aggregates all of my newsgroups says there are 418389 messages in it with 418344 unread (i.e. only 5 unread messages -- yeah right). However I know the difference between read and unread messages is in reality much much greater than that. Case in point for not trusting the message count numbers any more. But I digress on to yet another bug. Performance in an individual (real) folder is great. Switching from message to message is quick. It's in vfolders which represent a large aggregation where the message-to-message performance is sluggish, and of course, as I have said, startup times after a crash (which is still too frequent an occurrence unfortunately) is on the order of close to 10 minutes if not more and when I strace it, it's all reads/writes to the sqlite db(s). > but I don't use Evo for newsgroups. You should try it sometime if you want to see the scaling problems. I use gmane and nntp for mailing lists instead of getting the mail delivered here. Doing that really highlights the scaling problems. IMHO, the evo developers (especially the ones responsible for its scalability) should be *required* to use gmane for all of their mailing lists. Nothing like having to eat your own dogfood to making it taste good. b. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 21:38 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote: > > I don't use Exchange so I don't really have anything useful to say, > but > > just as a general comment, "large" means different things to > different > > people so you might want to be more specific. > > > > 1 - 2 GB during the time I was struggling with it. I meant how many messages. The physical space they take up is pretty much irrelevant. Never mind. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Sun, Aug 23, 2009 at 9:26 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I don't use Exchange so I don't really have anything useful to say, but > just as a general comment, "large" means different things to different > people so you might want to be more specific. > 1 - 2 GB during the time I was struggling with it. I should not have replied -- in fact I need to simply un-subscribe from this list so as not to be tempted. I have moved on from Evolution -- I believe it to be a fatally flawed product that will not ever meet the enterprise needs that I had hoped it would. I think it is a fine general use email client -- though there are better IMO -- but there simply is not nor is there likely to be the $$$/incentive/commitment that would be required to have EVO become a true open-source "OutLook" that can access enterprise as well as imap/pop message and calendar stores. But again -- I will unsubscribe from the list shortly and not bother anyone further. I'm sorry for the waste of bits ... ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 13:10 -0500, Peter Van Lone wrote: > 2009/8/23 Brian J. Murrell : > > I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for > > the next major release (2.6.28)? > > I would not hold my breath -- it has been like this for the several > years that I struggled trying to use it. Access to an Exchange mailbox > that is large is even worse. I've more or less given up -- and have > gone to pure webmail mailboxes and native Outlook client for work mail > (which means I have to keep a windows vm around on my primary laptop > ... sucks but there appears to be no real option). I don't use Exchange so I don't really have anything useful to say, but just as a general comment, "large" means different things to different people so you might want to be more specific. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
On Sun, 2009-08-23 at 12:03 -0400, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for > the next major release (2.6.28)? > > For reference, I filed bug 589245 in bugzilla back on July 21 and the > only response was a recommendation to use the patch in bug 564388 which > I reported I am already using. > > Even with that patch Evolution is not scaling very well. Startup times > after a crash are on the order of many many minutes, before I see a UI > even and then many more minutes before it's usable and them many more > minutes before vfolders are all fully populated. Your BZ report talks about issues with large newsgroups. Are you seeing the same with large mail folders? I have one IMAP folder with over 60,000 messages in it and I don't see any sluggishness (maybe a few seconds on startup), but I don't use Evo for newsgroups. poc ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?
2009/8/23 Brian J. Murrell : > I'm just wondering if the folder scalability issues will be resolved for > the next major release (2.6.28)? I would not hold my breath -- it has been like this for the several years that I struggled trying to use it. Access to an Exchange mailbox that is large is even worse. I've more or less given up -- and have gone to pure webmail mailboxes and native Outlook client for work mail (which means I have to keep a windows vm around on my primary laptop ... sucks but there appears to be no real option). ___ Evolution-list mailing list Evolution-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
