On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 11:52 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 16:11 +0000, Steve T wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 09:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > > On Tue, 2010-03-16 at 07:11 +0000, Steve T wrote: > > > > > As long as you copy everything while neither Evo nor Gconf are > > > > running > > > > > (see the FAQ answer) then you should be OK. The first time the new > > > > > version of Evo runs on the new machine it will do any required > > > > > conversion. > > > > > > > > > > poc > > > > > > > > > > > > Patrick, > > > > The 'migration' in this case was from FC9 to FC12 (on separate > > > > laptops) > > > > - the 'old' Evolution settings were 'Backed Up' via the Evolution > > > > option > > > > and that file was then used in the start up routine on the new laptop > > > > to > > > > import the setting etc (there was an option to import the data and > > > > settings from a file). > > > > > > > > That all ran fine and I now have what appears to be a fully working > > > > Evolution running under FC12. > > > > > > > > The only issues that I see so far are: > > > > 1) The 'search' folders seem very slow in updating the screen display. > > > > It takes a while (Generating Message list) moving between one folder > > > > and > > > > the next. > > > > > > Is this always the case, or only when visiting a folder for the first > > > time? If the latter, it could be the conversion to SQL that's taking the > > > time (I don't know if this happens "on demand" or just once when Evo > > > starts up). > > > > It's all the time - both at startup (about 5+mins to have fully > > processed the inbox), and then switching search folders after load can > > be slow. I have quite a few 'search' folders and the length of time > > taken to display the contents seems directly related to the complexity > > of the search (ie number of criteria) > > That could happen of course, for very complex searches.
It seems like swings and roundabouts - on the old FC9 version, it is far slower at 'Storing The Folder' after leaving it whereas the FC12 Evolution seems far slower at opening the folder. > > > > > 2) The unread count in the folders is not always accurate. This seems > > > > to > > > > self correct when Evolution is closed down and restarted. > > > > > > Known bug. I get it too. Very annoying. And it doesn't always go away > > > just by restarting Evo. Sometimes you have to unsubscribe the folder, > > > sometimes even disable the mail server and re-enable it. Just FYI - it seems that it only resets the count on the folder that you're working on. IE if I'm in my 'Last 24 Hours' folder and read a mail, it doesn't reset the count on the other 'search' folders that may include that mail. > > So far it has been ok with just restarting Evolution. But it's not > > major for me - a bigger problame that I've noticed is that the search > > folders don't always honour the rules. A case in point is a search > > folder that I have for the 'Last 24 Hours' where the rules are sent > > after a day ago or received after a day ago. Under the 'new' version > > that has been showing mails that are weeks old (that do not appear on > > the 'old' version. > > I don't use "Sent Date" for anything as it's unreliable (it depends on > the sender having a working clock). Have you tried Right-click Refresh > on this folder? > The problem doesn't appear on the old FC9 version - so it doesn't appear to be data dependent (same data being retrieved on both the FC9 and FC12). > Also, you haven't said if you're using IMAP or POP. It might be > relevant. > I'm using POP. So both the FC9 and FC12 retrieve the same data. The mail collection leaves the mail on the servers. > > > > I'm not reporting those two as issues per se - I'll check around over > > > > the next few days to see what I can find. > > > > > > > > PS Can you see where the 'indexes' etc are now held in mysql? > > > > > > they are .db files under ~/.evolution/mail. > > > > > > > And does > > > > that means that all the 'summary' files etc in the evolution folder > > > > structure are now completely redundant? > > > > > > No idea I'm afraid. > > > > > > BTW if indexing seems slow you can run the following script (due to > > > Srini), after shutting down Evo completely (--force-shutdown): > > > > > > cd ~/.evolution/mail/ > > > for i in `find . -name folders.db` > > > do > > > echo "Rebuilding Table $i" > > > sqlite3 $i "vacuum;" > > > done > > > > > > > I've created a job from that. I tried it by shutting down Evolution, > > then running the job (it showed the 'databases' being processed) - but > > after restarting Evolution the speed was still the same. I'm not sure > > whether the speed problem is in table structure or in the > > indexing/purging of the 'deleted' space. > > > > I have just tried switching on the 'old' system to the 'worst' search > > folder and that comes up in a couple of seconds - in the new version, > > that's now in minutes. > > Do you mean you have two parallel installations of Evo? I'm not sure how > that would work. > See above. I have two laptops (one FC9 and the other with the newly installed FC12) working with remote POP servers. The mail on the POP servers is deleted manually. > poc > Apologies for the delay in replying - I thought I had replied a couple of days back (it's my age)! > _______________________________________________ > Evolution-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
_______________________________________________ Evolution-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
