On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 04:12:09PM +0000, Sabahattin Gucukoglu via isync-devel wrote:
So my question is this: is it expected behaviour that timeouts occur because of long local operations,
yes, sort of.
and is it *correct* or desirable behaviour?
certainly not desirable.
Isn’t the “right thing” here to have a dedicated idle timeout, which would take effect while isync is doing purely local computation?
is that timeout reported by isync or the server? what's the end of the log with -Dn? if it's the server, then it's quite some work to fix - the maildir driver would have to be made asynchronous (possibly threaded).
I am successfully working around this situation by using a separate config file for the duration of the initial upload [...]
how is it different? my first idea would be to limit the operations to the minimum, in your case that should be --push-new if i understand your case correctly. secondly, if the problem is local i/o and you're pushing, then copying the box to a ram drive might be a solution. (make sure to move the state file into place when switching back to the proper box.) did you try to identify what the time is actually spent on? i'd first try htop and iotop, and then for finer results valgrind/cachegrind and strace -tt, resp. _______________________________________________ isync-devel mailing list isync-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/isync-devel
