IMAP speed

[Patrick O'Callaghan]

Just so you guys don't think I do nothing but complain, let me say that
I installed 2.3.7 an hour ago and seem to be seeing a dramatic
improvement in startup speed for my (large) IMAP mailboxes. Evo was
always very noticeably slower than TBird but that gap has closed
significantly or disappeared entirely.

Or is this just my fevered imagination?

poc

_______________________________________________
evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution

[Not Zed]

No it shouldn't be your imagination, it should be noticably faster for
most users.

Not to say there aren't new bugs now (offline seems a bit iffy for
example) ... but the code was re-done to remove a badly thought-out
implementation that seemed the right way to go at the time.  And some
locking was tuned to help reduce unecessary contention for locally
available resources.

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 00:13 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

> Just so you guys don't think I do nothing but complain, let me say that
> I installed 2.3.7 an hour ago and seem to be seeing a dramatic
> improvement in startup speed for my (large) IMAP mailboxes. Evo was
> always very noticeably slower than TBird but that gap has closed
> significantly or disappeared entirely.
>
> Or is this just my fevered imagination?
>
> poc
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution

--
adfa(evolution-2.4:20087): gtkhtml-WARNING **: cannot find icon:
'stock_insert-url' in gnome

_______________________________________________
evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution

[Jeffrey Stedfast]

the imap code was recently changed to delay scanning the folder for
changes rather than doing it right at "open" time which makes it appear
faster.

Jeff

On Wed, 2005-08-17 at 00:13 -0400, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

> Just so you guys don't think I do nothing but complain, let me say that
> I installed 2.3.7 an hour ago and seem to be seeing a dramatic
> improvement in startup speed for my (large) IMAP mailboxes. Evo was
> always very noticeably slower than TBird but that gap has closed
> significantly or disappeared entirely.
>
> Or is this just my fevered imagination?
>
> poc
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
>

_______________________________________________
evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution

[Andrew Cowie]

On Wed, 2005-17-08 at 12:53 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> Not to say there aren't new bugs now (offline seems a bit iffy for
> example) ...

What's the prognosis on that, Michael? Is that in the release critical
category, or a "yeah, whatever. We'll get to it eventually".

[As you'll recall, the offline use case has been my bugaboo for years
now; when I saw you were redoing the IMAP code I became hopeful, but
unfortunately there has been great cause for skepticism in the past. I
would dearly love to stop mucking about with offlineimap / getmail /
fetchmail / ssh tunnels etc and just use Evo, period - but the bar is
high. I will NOT be caught again an hour out over the Pacific only to
discover Evo won't allow me to access IMAP messages that it perfectly
well has cached but, since it wasn't in "offline" mode when last
disconnected, it couldn't figure out it had. That made me very
grumpy. :|]

Anyway, it's your call whether or not it's a priority - I'm just
curious.

AfC
Sydney

--
Andrew Frederick Cowie

Technology strategy, managing change, establishing procedures,
and executing successful upgrades to mission critical business
infrastructure.

http://www.operationaldynamics.com/

Sydney   New York   Toronto   London

_______________________________________________
evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution

[Not Zed]

On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 12:44 +1000, Andrew Cowie wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-17-08 at 12:53 +0800, Not Zed wrote:
> > Not to say there aren't new bugs now (offline seems a bit iffy for
> > example) ...
>
> What's the prognosis on that, Michael? Is that in the release critical
> category, or a "yeah, whatever. We'll get to it eventually".

It will be release critical to be no worse than previous releases ...

Anything better will be a bonus.

> [As you'll recall, the offline use case has been my bugaboo for years
> now; when I saw you were redoing the IMAP code I became hopeful, but
> unfortunately there has been great cause for skepticism in the past. I
> would dearly love to stop mucking about with offlineimap / getmail /
> fetchmail / ssh tunnels etc and just use Evo, period - but the bar is
> high. I will NOT be caught again an hour out over the Pacific only to
> discover Evo won't allow me to access IMAP messages that it perfectly
> well has cached but, since it wasn't in "offline" mode when last
> disconnected, it couldn't figure out it had. That made me very
> grumpy. :|]

That sounds like a pretty old bug there.

Certainly all of the normal or higher bugs that have been filed against
evolution for offline imap (not imap4), are fixed.  Or they're things
like performance that would be more nice to fix than need fixing (and
really can't be fixed in a reasonable amount of time).  As far as i'm
aware anyway - there are so many bugs it is easy to miss them.

> Anyway, it's your call whether or not it's a priority - I'm just
> curious.

Well above is only my personal take.  I don't know what management have
assigned to this (or to anything else for that matter, if they even
have).  I'm quite out of the loop lately, and counting down the days to
when I can move onto something else.

 Michael



_______________________________________________
evolution maillist  -  evolution@...
http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution