After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 584602 - opening a folder does too much disk IO
opening a folder does too much disk IO
Status: RESOLVED INCOMPLETE
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.28.x (obsolete)
Other All
: Normal normal
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2009-06-02 11:42 UTC by Robert Collins
Modified: 2014-05-03 10:42 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.25/2.26



Description Robert Collins 2009-06-02 11:42:53 UTC
Please describe the problem:
When evolution opens it accesses a large amount of data from disk. On my INBOX this takes several minutes to process. The scanned message phase takes a few seconds at the end of this large amount of data processing. Filtering messages can then be slow too, for what I assume is the same root cause. My inbox has 111K messages in it.

Steps to reproduce:
Presumably, get 111K messages in a folder, and open it with a cold disk cache.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Does this happen every time?
Oh yes.

Other information:
Comment 1 André Klapper 2009-06-02 16:01:39 UTC
Which account type? Which exact version?
Comment 2 Akhil Laddha 2009-06-03 05:05:39 UTC
may be on same lines of bug 583182
Comment 3 Robert Collins 2009-06-03 05:45:29 UTC
bug 583182 probably wants the perf keyword added. It might be related, I can't say for sure. git of evo and evo-data-server as of a few days ago. (I built git to be sure it wasn't fixed before reporting - its been like this for a long time).

"IMAP" in Receiving options.
Comment 4 Milan Crha 2010-03-26 19:31:10 UTC
I have an IMAP folder with almost 77K messages, and it opens in less than 6 seconds (with 'open' I mean a time when I click on the folder in the folder list and time when the message list is populated). This is with actual master (~2.30.0).

Could you try with the upcoming Evolution 2.30.0+ too, please?

Note that here had been done some improvements in the SQLite area, one of them is to use bigger cache, thus it can read data in bigger chunks. Your slowness may also be related in your sort options. There had been done an improvement with text sorting (like when sorting by subject). Could you share your sorting for this folder, please?

Thanks in advance.
Comment 5 Robert Collins 2010-03-28 20:57:46 UTC
I'll look at going a build of master to find out. The cache size is a bit of a hack - I already upped my cache size using the persistent cache size setting via the sqlite command line; the fundamental problem has been that evolution touches every message in the folder. If it no longer does that, then the bug is fixed ;) if it still does it, it isn't :> :>.

One thing to note though, is that it maybe a bit tricky for me to test this now, as I have recently got a new laptop with an SSD, and it flies!
Comment 6 Tobias Mueller 2010-05-29 14:13:19 UTC
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for.
Thanks!
Comment 7 Robert Collins 2010-05-29 21:30:11 UTC
Well as I said, its pretty easy to diagnose: watch and see if every message is touched (queried from the folder in sqlite) when opening the folder : thats a terrible scaling factor to have.

My new laptop is sufficiently fast I don't particularly care, but anyone on spinning platters is likely to care a great deal.

As for sort order, I missed that - it was 'date received' with newest at the top.

I do intend, at some point, to roll a master build and add enough instrumentation to trivially debug this, but I don't think its true to say I haven't provided the info needed. I've previously looked deeply into the sqlite cache size - but that is fundamentally a workaround for inefficient algorithms, and nowhere near scalable enough for serious mail management.
Comment 8 André Klapper 2014-02-23 15:27:45 UTC
I don't see how this ticket is currently actionable. :(

Does the problem still exist in 3.10?
Comment 9 André Klapper 2014-05-03 10:42:09 UTC
Closing this bug report as no further information has been provided. Please feel free to reopen this bug if you can provide the information asked for.
Thanks!