On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:32:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote: >On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Maxim Vuets <[email protected]> wrote: >> I'd really like to understand what is the underlying problem and why >> offlineimap can handle it better (-: You are saying you experience a >> slowness when pulling message statuses from Gmail back to local Maildir, >> correct? Essentially it is a "FETCH 1:N (UID FLAGS)"-like IMAP query, >> where N is a highest known message ID that results in multiple rename(2) >> syscalls. (Unless I'm missing something.) > >I'm not familiar with IMAP queries, but basically I want to things: > >1. Fetch the whole contents of all the messages that don't exist >locally, I believe that's done with PullNew >2. Fetch all the flag updates >3. Push all the flag updates, I think Push does that > >Essentially, the flags are always synchronized.
I had a quick look at offlineimap. From its log file I cannot see anything that offlineimap would do different. After all the same IMAP queries done the same way. >> When you are saying mbsync takes way long and you have too many >> messages, what exact numbers do you mean? > >This is running a test where I synchronize a single tag from Gmail >using PullFlags. There isn't even anything to update, everything is >marked as read both locally and remotely and there's no other changes. > >Reading configuration file /home/felipec/.mbsyncrc >Resolving imap.gmail.com... ok >Connecting to 173.194.64.108:993... ok >Connection is now encrypted >Logging in... >Channel gmail-test >Selecting slave git... 148273 messages, 0 recent >Selecting master git... 148289 messages, 0 recent >Synchronizing >Expunging master >Expunging slave >mbsync gmail-test 0.89s user 0.45s system 0% cpu 2:45.92 total > >And the 'git' tag is not even close to how many messages I have in other tags. Whoa! It's a way larger volume that I have here (-: So how long does offlineimap take to synch your 'git' tag? Could you run it with the option -1 set, please? It makes offlineimap to run in a single thread, so we have fair results to compare. I think offlineimap may work for you faster exactly due to its ability to split a range of messages into several chunks and process them in parallel using multiple threads. But in essense the problem remains, irregardless of what software is used. In order to learn what's changed, a client has to request a status of each message, and a server has to send it over a network every time one synches her mail. We could blame IMAP being limited in these terms. Mail archiving would be an option though, but not sure if it's applicable for you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ October Webinars: Code for Performance Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance. Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
