Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:16 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Hm, that would affect Evolution's *own* performance? It was taking
> about 40ms for each call to imapx_expunge_uid_from_summary(), probably
> in camel_folder_summary_remove_uid(). Most of the time was spent
> waiting on a futex.
It's definitely imapx_expunge_uid_from_summary() taking about 40ms per
message. Which, when thousands of messages disappear from the server,
ends up being a *lot* of time...
[imapx:B] token '*'
[imapx:B] got untagged response
[imapx:B] token TOKEN 'VANISHED'
[imapx:B] Have token 'VANISHED' id 0
[imapx:B] token '('
[imapx:B] token TOKEN 'EARLIER'
[imapx:B] token ')'
[imapx:B] token TOKEN '65741:71268'
[imapx:B] vanished: 65741
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.042418s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65742
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.033774s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65743
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.042135s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65744
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.041999s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65745
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.042179s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65746
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.042083s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65747
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.050230s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65748
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.042213s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65749
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.050395s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65750
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.041951s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65751
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.033874s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65752
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.042130s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65753
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.050304s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65754
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.033764s
[imapx:B] vanished: 65755
camel_folder_summary_remove_uid() took 0.043655s
...
What the hell happened? This code wasn't this slow before, was it?
I'm looking to see if there's a "batch" operation that I can use to
remove the whole lot at once, but there doesn't seem to be.
--
dwmw2
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
evolution-hackers mailing list
evolution-hackers@gnome.org
To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Evolution Plugins Guide?
pull down the source and look in the evolution/plugins directory On 5/19/2012 3:16 AM, Onyeibo Oku wrote: Greetings How does one begin to script plugins for Evolution. I'm considering an exploration into mail-merging. Similar to this one for Thunderbird ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/mail-merge/ ) How can one begin to navigate towards realising this? Any guides, libraries, SDK etc. that I need to look at? Is it something an intermediate scripting enthusiast can handle? (I do python mainly) Regards Onyeibo ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:16 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > camel-imapx:ERROR:camel-imapx-server.c:1373:imapx_untagged: code should not > be reached > Aborted > > That's an abort when it receives a FETCH response for a message it > didn't think it knew about. But it *had*. I'll do a better analysis, > post a log and file a bug later. https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=667725 -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Sasa Ostrouska wrote: > On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Xavier Bestel wrote: >> >> I don't know, but Evo takes several minutes to start with tracker, vs a few >> seconds without. >> > > I have still Evo 2.26.x and sometimes tracker is really a pain. It is > useful but really > on my machine i disable it, because of troubles with reindexing all of > the times. > > Rgds > Saxa > >> >> David Woodhouse a écrit : >>> >>> On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:25 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: >>> > I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got >>> > something like 44K messages in my inbox). >>> > Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. >>> > Happy me. >>> >>> Hm, that would affect Evolution's *own* performance? It was taking about >>> 40ms for each call to imapx_expunge_uid_from_summary(), probably in >>> camel_folder_summary_remove_uid(). Most of the time was spent waiting on >>> a futex. >>> >>> I got bored after a couple of hours and went to bed. Left it running >>> overnight to see what happened, and by the morning it had crashed: >>> >>> camel-imapx:ERROR:camel-imapx-server.c:1373:imapx_untagged: code should >>> not be reached >>> Aborted >>> >>> That's an abort when it receives a FETCH response for a message it >>> didn't think it knew about. But it *had*. I'll do a better analysis, >>> post a log and file a bug later. >>> >>> -- >>> dwmw2 >> >> >> ___ >> evolution-hackers mailing list >> evolution-hackers@gnome.org >> To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers >> ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
I don't know, but Evo takes several minutes to start with tracker, vs a few seconds without. David Woodhouse a écrit : On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:25 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got > something like 44K messages in my inbox). > Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. > Happy me. Hm, that would affect Evolution's *own* performance? It was taking about 40ms for each call to imapx_expunge_uid_from_summary(), probably in camel_folder_summary_remove_uid(). Most of the time was spent waiting on a futex. I got bored after a couple of hours and went to bed. Left it running overnight to see what happened, and by the morning it had crashed: camel-imapx:ERROR:camel-imapx-server.c:1373:imapx_untagged: code should not be reached Aborted That's an abort when it receives a FETCH response for a message it didn't think it knew about. But it *had*. I'll do a better analysis, post a log and file a bug later. -- dwmw2 ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
Some kind of indexing system. Useless for the pain it causes. Onyeibo Oku a écrit : On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:25 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > Hi, > > Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 à 23:43 +0100, David Woodhouse a écrit : > > I just updated to Fedora 17 and Evolution 3.4. > > > > It seems to have just noticed that I archived a quarter's mail, and is > > deleting the old messages from its cache... taking about 40 seconds to > > delete each 1,000 messages. This is a *lot* slower than it used to be... > > isn't it? > > > > This is imapx with qresync, and I'm watching the 'vanished: xx' > > messages count past because I killed it and restarted with > > CAMEL_DEBUG=imapx so I could see wtf it was doing. > > I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got > something like 44K messages in my inbox). > Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. > Happy me. > > HTH, What is tracker by the way? The thing keeps crashing on my system? Oku ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 07:26 -0400, Adam Tauno Williams wrote: > Once the index is up to date there is almost no way it noticeably > effects performance unless something else it wrong. Heh. To "effect performance"¹ would be to make it go fast, right? :) -- dwmw2 ¹ as opposed to "affect performance" which I think it what you *meant* to say :) smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 10:49 +0100, Onyeibo Oku wrote: > On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:25 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 à 23:43 +0100, David Woodhouse a écrit : > > > I just updated to Fedora 17 and Evolution 3.4. > > > It seems to have just noticed that I archived a quarter's mail, and is > > > deleting the old messages from its cache... taking about 40 seconds to > > > delete each 1,000 messages. This is a *lot* slower than it used to be... > > > isn't it? > > > This is imapx with qresync, and I'm watching the 'vanished: xx' > > > messages count past because I killed it and restarted with > > > CAMEL_DEBUG=imapx so I could see wtf it was doing. > > I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got > > something like 44K messages in my inbox). > > Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. > > Happy me. > What is tracker by the way? The thing keeps crashing on my system? It is a [excellent] desktop-search implementation. There is a load incurred [obviously] during the initial indexing but this goes away once the index is up to date. Once the index is up to date there is almost no way it noticeably effects performance unless something else it wrong. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:25 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got > something like 44K messages in my inbox). > Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. > Happy me. Hm, that would affect Evolution's *own* performance? It was taking about 40ms for each call to imapx_expunge_uid_from_summary(), probably in camel_folder_summary_remove_uid(). Most of the time was spent waiting on a futex. I got bored after a couple of hours and went to bed. Left it running overnight to see what happened, and by the morning it had crashed: camel-imapx:ERROR:camel-imapx-server.c:1373:imapx_untagged: code should not be reached Aborted That's an abort when it receives a FETCH response for a message it didn't think it knew about. But it *had*. I'll do a better analysis, post a log and file a bug later. -- dwmw2 smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 11:25 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote: > Hi, > > Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 à 23:43 +0100, David Woodhouse a écrit : > > I just updated to Fedora 17 and Evolution 3.4. > > > > It seems to have just noticed that I archived a quarter's mail, and is > > deleting the old messages from its cache... taking about 40 seconds to > > delete each 1,000 messages. This is a *lot* slower than it used to be... > > isn't it? > > > > This is imapx with qresync, and I'm watching the 'vanished: xx' > > messages count past because I killed it and restarted with > > CAMEL_DEBUG=imapx so I could see wtf it was doing. > > I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got > something like 44K messages in my inbox). > Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. > Happy me. > > HTH, What is tracker by the way? The thing keeps crashing on my system? Oku ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Did 3.4 just get really slow?
Hi, Le vendredi 18 mai 2012 à 23:43 +0100, David Woodhouse a écrit : > I just updated to Fedora 17 and Evolution 3.4. > > It seems to have just noticed that I archived a quarter's mail, and is > deleting the old messages from its cache... taking about 40 seconds to > delete each 1,000 messages. This is a *lot* slower than it used to be... > isn't it? > > This is imapx with qresync, and I'm watching the 'vanished: xx' > messages count past because I killed it and restarted with > CAMEL_DEBUG=imapx so I could see wtf it was doing. I'm using Debian, and found Evo getting slower and slower (I've got something like 44K messages in my inbox). Now I just removed Tracker from my system, and it's snappy again. Happy me. HTH, Xav ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
[Evolution-hackers] Evolution Plugins Guide?
Greetings How does one begin to script plugins for Evolution. I'm considering an exploration into mail-merging. Similar to this one for Thunderbird ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/mail-merge/ ) How can one begin to navigate towards realising this? Any guides, libraries, SDK etc. that I need to look at? Is it something an intermediate scripting enthusiast can handle? (I do python mainly) Regards Onyeibo ___ evolution-hackers mailing list evolution-hackers@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
