-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: "Patrick Ohly" <[email protected]>
Gesendet: 02.11.2011 17:45:28
An: "Frederik Elwert" <[email protected]>
Betreff: Re: N9 Bluetooth sync incomplete, 500 status for Delete (was: Re:
[SyncEvolution] syncevo-dbus-server dies - SIGPIPE)
>On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 15:00 +0100, Frederik Elwert wrote:
>> >On Mon, 2011-10-31 at 13:57 +0100, Frederik Elwert wrote:
>> >> There is just one issue that I could not yet identify: There is always
>> >> a number of calendar entries in ERR state, which get re-submitted with
>> >> the next sync, and then again be rejected. On the N9, at a first
>> >> glance no recent entries seem to be missing, so I did not do too much
>> >> to triage this issue. On the other hand, this probably makes each sync
>> >> use more time than necessary. Any ideas where these errors might sttem
>> >> from? I’ll send you a loglevel=4 log in private, maybe you can make
>> >> more sense of it than I can.
>> >
>> >The failures are all for item delete requests. The N9 returns a very
>> >uninformative 500, which is usually about an internal error. Because the
>> >Synthesis engine doesn't know what to do about that, it keeps trying.
>> >
>> >Can you do a refresh sync? I assume your desktop has all your events, so
>> >do a '--sync refresh-from-server' on the desktop (which is the server in
>> >this case).
>>
>> I did a refresh-from-server for the calendar, and then a normal sync
>> (no sync mode given). During that normal sync, syncevolution also did
>> a slow sync for the calendar (while doing a two-way sync for the
>> address book), which lead to various conflicts.
>
>The slow sync was caused by doing the refresh-from-server with the
>"calendar" source, while during a normal sync "calendar+todo" is used.
>The Synthesis engine cannot reuse the anchors from one real source
>("calendar") in a sync with a virtual source ("calendar+todo").
>
>Can you try again with "refresh-from-server" for "calendar+todo"?
I tried again with calendar+todo.
A subsequent normal sync again did a slow sync. I restored, and in a second
attempt, I tried an explicit --sync two-way calendar+todo. That worked for the
calendar (two-way, no conflicts/ERRs), but not for the todo (slow sync, all 15
items in conflict). After that, a normal sync (no explict sources given, i.e.
all configured sources synced) worked fine.
Since I am no longer really using todo sync (those 15 are old left-over
entries), this is okay for me. The important thing was the calendar sync.
I sent you the logs in private, so you could see in detail what I did.
>I wonder why that worked. Has the "calendar" source any URI configured?
>It could be that it used the "calendar" source name as fallback. That
>wasn't the intention when adding that fallback; the goal was to simplify
>SyncEvolution<->SyncEvolution syncs.
No, the calendar source is disabled, and has no uri. Only calendar+todo and
addressbook is configured.
Regards
Frederik
___________________________________________________________
SMS schreiben mit WEB.DE FreeMail - einfach, schnell und
kostenguenstig. Jetzt gleich testen! http://f.web.de/?mc=021192
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
