My apology. I effectually misread what you have said. But the fact remains that there is a memory leak when filtering with a vFolder which encompass IMAP folders I think. Should I fill a bug report on that subject and/or do you have any ideas how I could help in finding that leak.
Regards Pascal On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 00:53, Not Zed wrote: > > With all due respect, I wrote the indexing code, and the vfolder code, > and infact, the searching code, and indexing isn't used by IMAP at all, > I can guarantee you that. Perhaps you misread what I said. > > And yes since you are using body searching in your vfolder, that is > entirely the problem. IMAP body searches are genereally slow. The HEAD > version of evolution has some code to greatly improve vfolder > performance in this case. > > > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:53, Pascal DeMilly wrote: > > With all due respect I disagree. This vFolder was filtering some text in > > message body contents with vFolder source set to "all locals and active > > remote folder" which filtered messages in my IMAP folders (I only have > > IMAP folders with messages in it, even my sent folder is IMAP, so I know > > that it worked for sure) > > > > Regards > > > > Pascal > > > > PS: Since removing that vFolder filtering I haven't experienced any > > slowdown or visible memory leaks. > > > > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 21:18, Not Zed wrote: > > > > > > Which vfolder was that? > > > > > > IMAP doesn't use the indexing code at all, it is only local folders that > > > use it. > > > > > > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 04:22, Pascal DeMilly wrote: > > > > Also since I removed my vFolder entry, Evolution access to my IMAP > > > > server is way faster. Sometimes it would take 5 seconds or more to > > > > switch messages in one folder. I thought that might have been due to the > > > > new indexing that was discussed in the list but obviously it must have > > > > had to do with the vFolder as it is the only thing I removed. > > > > > > > > Hope that helps you pinpointing the problem in some way > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > > > > > Pascal > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:58, Ettore Perazzoli wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:31, Not Zed wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > You could try using 'memprof' on evolution-mail (you run 'memprof > > > > > > evolution-mail' before starting evolution) to try and track down what is > > > > > > eating so much memory. We do occasionally but I certainly dont > > > > > > experience that problem with evolution (but i am using an earlier > > > > > > version). > > > > > > > > > > Somebody else reported this to me a while ago on IRC and I asked him to > > > > > run memprof but memprof just got all confused and reported nothing. > > > > > > > > > > Although, this seems to be related to IMAP filtering. (I.e. if I > > > > > remember correctly, he didn't seem to have any memory leaks if he turned > > > > > off all the indexes.) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Ettore > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution > > > > _______________________________________________ > evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution _______________________________________________ evolution maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
