[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-23 Thread Carl Worth
On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 10:15:39 -0500, Brett Viren wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Mike Hommey > wrote: > But, here is one that looks I/O bound: > > notmuch tag -unread tag:inbox > > I have my home directory on an encfs volume and I see it and notmuch >

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-22 Thread Brett Viren
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Mike Hommey wrote: > A good test, if you have enough memory, would be to put your mailbox in > a tmpfs, and see how fast that imports. (Oops, forgot to reply to the list.) I don't see any function calls related to I/O on the call

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-22 Thread Mike Hommey
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 05:36:18PM -0500, Brett Viren wrote: > On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > > > Though, frankly, I think we need to fix "notmuch new" to do much better > > than 40 files/sec. > > Just a "me too". > > Processed 130871 total files in 38m 7s (57

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-22 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:36:18 -0500, Brett Viren wrote: > Processed 130871 total files in 38m 7s (57 files/sec.). > Added 102723 new messages to the database (not much, really). Just be glad that you have so little mail. ;-) > This was ~2GB of mail on a 2.5GHz CPU. That seems pretty reasonable

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:36:06 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Yup, I had the repo on my disk a week before Keith blogged about it. Just nice > that it was going crazy that fast and people start using it and contributing > to > it. Yes, it's quite fun. > > Though, frankly, I think we need to fix

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Stefan Schmidt
Hello. On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 18:07, Carl Worth wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:51:11 +0100, Stefan Schmidt datenfreihafen.org> wrote: > > Disclaimer: I'm using vim, in combination with mutt for email, for years, > > but > > never dealt with emacs. Please have this in mind and spot any emacs

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Stefan Schmidt
Hello. On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 18:26, Carl Worth wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:36:55 +0100, Stefan Schmidt datenfreihafen.org> wrote: > > > In my case only 80 messages were printed before the gap. All of them had a > > wrong > > year in the timestamp. 1900 and 1970. Maybe notmuch just comes

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Stefan Schmidt
Hello. On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 18:16, Carl Worth wrote: > On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:12:52 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > > I haven't figured out how to quickly tag everything as already read or > > archived or whatever .. can someone who knows more about what's going on > > confirm my hypothesis and if

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:36:55 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > I executed "/usr/local/bin/notmuch search --sort=oldest-first tag:inbox" by > hand > and from the 21 minutes it took it stayed around 20 in a state where no new > message where printed and then sudenly all the rest comes up. That's

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:12:52 -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote: > I haven't figured out how to quickly tag everything as already read or > archived or whatever .. can someone who knows more about what's going on > confirm my hypothesis and if so, suggest the best approach to getting to > a happier state?

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Carl Worth
On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:51:11 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Disclaimer: I'm using vim, in combination with mutt for email, for years, but > never dealt with emacs. Please have this in mind and spot any emacs user > errors > in this report. :) Hi Stefan, welcome to Notmuch! And don't worry, we

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Brett Viren
On Sat, Nov 21, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Carl Worth wrote: > Though, frankly, I think we need to fix "notmuch new" to do much better > than 40 files/sec. Just a "me too". Processed 130871 total files in 38m 7s (57 files/sec.). Added 102723 new messages to the database (not much, really). This was

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Stefan Schmidt
Hello. On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 08:12, Bdale Garbee wrote: > On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 15:51 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > > > Sadly that takes around 25 minutes here on an Intel Core2Duo notbeook > > (Thinkpad > > X200s). I tried this several times now. CPU load was low (~10%) during this > > time

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Stefan Schmidt
Hello. Disclaimer: I'm using vim, in combination with mutt for email, for years, but never dealt with emacs. Please have this in mind and spot any emacs user errors in this report. :) I have first seen notmuch several weeks ago as it seems a silent project. Being more then happy now that it

[notmuch] 25 minutes load time with emacs -f notmuch

2009-11-21 Thread Bdale Garbee
On Sat, 2009-11-21 at 15:51 +0100, Stefan Schmidt wrote: > Sadly that takes around 25 minutes here on an Intel Core2Duo notbeook > (Thinkpad > X200s). I tried this several times now. CPU load was low (~10%) during this > time > so it is mostly IO bound. I see the same behavior on my notebook.