On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Average RTT to my imap server is 20ms, although since downloading the
> flags is done as one large pull, and not in a lockstep fashion,
> latency doesn't matter as much as throughput. So perhaps what's more
> important is that I have 32.5 M
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 08:03:25AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> > The problem is not the downloading of new messages, it's the time it
> > takes to synchronize all the flags. The folder I'm testing has almost
> > 150,000 messages, and it's not the biggest one, just the biggest I've
> > synced s
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Felipe Contreras
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also
>>> take a long long time, and is synchro
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also
>> take a long long time, and is synchronizing all the flags. It's
>> slightly faster than mbsync at do
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Gammel Holte wrote:
>
>> So at the end of the day, the real difference is that offlineimap does
>> allow me to set a maxage for the messages, while mbsync does not.
>>
>> That's why I cannot use my folders with lots of messages, and that's
>> why it takes so long t
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 09:54:28PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> After I fetched the whole label I realized that offlineimap does also
> take a long long time, and is synchronizing all the flags. It's
> slightly faster than mbsync at doing so, but that's not an issue.
Is this for the first time
> So at the end of the day, the real difference is that offlineimap does
> allow me to set a maxage for the messages, while mbsync does not.
>
> That's why I cannot use my folders with lots of messages, and that's
> why it takes so long to sync the flags.
>
I agree that a working maxage is the maj
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:32:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
>>> I'd really like to understand what is the underlying problem and why
>>> offlineimap can handle it better (-: You are sa
On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Pushing the updates is not the problem for me, as it's usually a
>> couple of messages that get updated, it's fetching them. Even if
>> nothing changed at all, it takes a lon
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:34:38PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Pushing the updates is not the problem for me, as it's usually a
> couple of messages that get updated, it's fetching them. Even if
> nothing changed at all, it takes a long time.
What's your ping round trip time (RTT) to your IMA
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 07:09:45PM +0200, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> I propose to benefit from using a sequence-set that is described at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3501#section-9.
>
that's already in the TODO file ... for years.
-
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 12:32:26PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Maxim Vuets 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 st
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> ...
>>Which works reasonably fast, but if I read something in Gmail, it
>>doesn't get marked as read locally.
>>
>>If I do 'Sync PullNew PullFlags Push' then the local flags ar
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Maxim Vuets wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:59:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>I switched away from offlineimap when I got a synchronization issue
>>and had to re-download all my mail, and it took forever. Then mbsync
>>was much faster, but today offlinei
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
...
>Which works reasonably fast, but if I read something in Gmail, it
>doesn't get marked as read locally.
>
>If I do 'Sync PullNew PullFlags Push' then the local flags are
>updated, but it takes a long looong time to complete.
>
>I
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:59:30AM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>I switched away from offlineimap when I got a synchronization issue
>and had to re-download all my mail, and it took forever. Then mbsync
>was much faster, but today offlineimap seems quite fast, maybe even
>faster.
I am being just
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Gammel Holte wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Felipe Contreras
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
>> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> >> Is there a way to update the flags local
On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Felipe Contreras <
[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> Is there a way to update the flags locally fast?
> >>
> > not really, and
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Is there a way to update the flags locally fast?
>>
> not really, and i don't see how the problem could be generally avoided.
> you may get something useful by setting
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:39:03PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Is there a way to update the flags locally fast?
>
not really, and i don't see how the problem could be generally avoided.
you may get something useful by setting MaxMessages (but note that it
still doesn't work for a new sync of
Hi,
Recently I've been using mbsync more, and I noticed that the mail
flags are not synchronized correctly.
I have this configuration for Gmail:
Channel gmail
Master :gmail:
Slave :local:
Pattern INBOX stuff
Expunge Both
Sync PullNew Push
Which works reasonably fast, but if I read something in
21 matches
Mail list logo
