[Dovecot] Sorting a folder (by THREAD) takes a long time
My email workflow with Dovecot is that mail gets delivered to INBOX, where I handle it and then move it into a folder called archive.
I have alpine set to use the Default sort of "THREAD" of a folder. After moving a (few) mail(s) from INBOX to archive, archive takes a long time (10-50s) to load while alpine tells me:
[Sorting "archive" ... ](I can do the IMAP traces, but I figure alpine's terminology is going to be so similar to IMAP terminology that it should be straightforward enough for Timo to know what I'm talking about.)
I don't actually know enough about Dovecot to say for sure what makes this slow, but maybe it's just indexes not being updated? What might be making this slow, and what hope is there for it being fast? (-:
It seems like the really nice thing to do would be, after the save, in the background examine the archive folder and update whatever caches need to be updated. The more work that happens while I'm not waiting, the happier I'll be! (Same goes for my mom, and the other less-technical users of Dovecot.)
Is this the kind of thing I could write a plugin for...?
-- Asheesh.
-- It seems to make an auto driver mad if he misses you.
On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:57 AM, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
My email workflow with Dovecot is that mail gets delivered to INBOX,
where I handle it and then move it into a folder called archive.I have alpine set to use the Default sort of "THREAD" of a folder.
After moving a (few) mail(s) from INBOX to archive, archive takes a
long time (10-50s) to load while alpine tells me:[Sorting "archive" ... ]
How large is your INBOX? Unless you've disabled index files the
threading should go pretty fast even for thousands of messages.
But if it really is because of THREAD, you're in luck. I've almost
finished thread index implementation and I'm also considering making
it available for v1.1 as a plugin.
On 3/7/2008, Timo Sirainen (tss@iki.fi) wrote:
But if it really is because of THREAD, you're in luck. I've almost finished thread index implementation and I'm also considering making it available for v1.1 as a plugin.
Curious... did you mean 1.0? I'm trying to figure out what else you would be developing for...
--
Best regards,
Charles
On Mar 7, 2008, at 6:17 PM, Charles Marcus wrote:
On 3/7/2008, Timo Sirainen (tss@iki.fi) wrote:
But if it really is because of THREAD, you're in luck. I've almost
finished thread index implementation and I'm also considering
making it available for v1.1 as a plugin.Curious... did you mean 1.0? I'm trying to figure out what else you
would be developing for...
Nope. v1.1 will be released soon, so thread indexes are being
developed mainly for v1.2.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
My email workflow with Dovecot is that mail gets delivered to INBOX, where I handle it and then move it into a folder called archive.
I have alpine set to use the Default sort of "THREAD" of a folder. After moving a (few) mail(s) from INBOX to archive, archive takes a long time (10-50s) to load while alpine tells me:
[Sorting "archive" ... ](I can do the IMAP traces, but I figure alpine's terminology is going to be so similar to IMAP terminology that it should be straightforward enough for Timo to know what I'm talking about.)
I'd do the traces if I were you. Maybe it's something to do with "Thread Sorts By Arrival" or similar Alpine threading quirks. There was also traffic a couple months ago about threading scaling non-linearly in Alpine depending on that setting. I assume you're running a recent snapshot, but I don't recall whether that issue was resolved.
Best, Ben
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Timo Sirainen wrote:
How large is your INBOX? Unless you've disabled index files the threading should go pretty fast even for thousands of messages.
(now it's "archive" and "Lists" that are so big)
ca. 100K messages
But if it really is because of THREAD, you're in luck. I've almost finished thread index implementation and I'm also considering making it available for v1.1 as a plugin.
That would rule. (Unless I can already get it as part of the 1.2 hg tree, in which case I'm not averse to upgrading)
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Benjamin R. Haskell wrote:
I'd do the traces if I were you. Maybe it's something to do with "Thread Sorts By Arrival" or similar Alpine threading quirks. There was also traffic a couple months ago about threading scaling non-linearly in Alpine depending on that setting. I assume you're running a recent snapshot, but I don't recall whether that issue was resolved.
Good question about "Thread sorts by arrival". I disabled that for now.
Attaching to the imap process in gdb and interrupting to get a stack trace every once in a while, I find it's mostly (80%) in this:
#2 0xb7e28ff3 in readdir64 () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #3 0x0806fbe1 in maildir_scan_dir (ctx=0x80f6170, new_dir=false) at maildir-sync.c:421 #4 0x0807060d in maildir_sync_context (ctx=0x80f6170, forced=<value optimized out>, lost_files_r=0xbf9a7aab) at maildir-sync.c:778 #5 0x080706f6 in maildir_storage_sync_init (box=0x81076a0, flags=<value optimized out>) at maildir-sync.c:837 #6 0x080ba49f in mailbox_sync (box=0x81076a0, flags=MAILBOX_SYNC_FLAG_FULL_READ, status_items=111, status_r=0xbf9a7b18) at mail-storage.c:536 #7 0x0805fb75 in cmd_select_full (cmd=0x8100c78, readonly=false) at cmd-select.c:39 #8 0x0805fd19 in cmd_select (cmd=0x8100c78) at cmd-select.c:87 #9 0x08061389 in client_command_input (cmd=0x8100c78) at client.c:505
and maybe (maybe less) 20% in this:
(gdb) bt #0 mail_cache_lookup_iter_next (ctx=0xbf9a78b0, field_r=0xbf9a78d0) at mail-cache-lookup.c:226 #1 0x0809e208 in mail_cache_field_exists (view=0x8109820, seq=106065, field=1) at mail-cache-lookup.c:260 #2 0x080929fe in index_mail_set_seq (_mail=0x8116390, seq=106065) at index-mail.c:1054 #3 0x0809656a in index_storage_search_next_nonblock (_ctx=0x8108358, mail=0x8116390, tryagain_r=0xbf9a7a7b) at index-search.c:1039 #4 0xb7f0d441 in fts_mailbox_search_next_nonblock (ctx=0x8108358, mail=0x8116390, tryagain_r=0xbf9a7a7b) at fts-storage.c:617 #5 0x080ba642 in mailbox_search_next (ctx=0x8108358, mail=0x8116390) at mail-storage.c:633 #6 0x080680e9 in imap_thread (cmd=0x8100c78, charset=0x8104f50 "US-ASCII", args=0x8109bf8, type=MAIL_THREAD_REFERENCES) at imap-thread.c:142
Opening the folder takes some 10 seconds. FWIW, I know that only one message has changed in the folder since I last SELECTed it - that was an APPEND, which Dovecot knew about - maybe it could have resynchronized the folder in the background during that APPEND so the next open would be instantaneous.
Can maybe Dovecot show me the last cached version of the folder so I can see the index immediately, and in the background re-sync that? That way opening folders could be instantaneous, and each next IMAP action could give me a chance to see the synchronized state once it's ready.
-- Asheesh.
-- we: The single most important word in the world.
On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 01:42 -0400, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
But if it really is because of THREAD, you're in luck. I've almost finished thread index implementation and I'm also considering making it available for v1.1 as a plugin.
That would rule. (Unless I can already get it as part of the 1.2 hg tree, in which case I'm not averse to upgrading)
v1.2 hg tree does have thread indexing code, but it's a bit buggy and I've already rewritten most of it. I did several tests yesterday and it's beginning to look pretty good, although there are still some bugs. I'll try to get those fixed soon and commit the code. After that it's actually time for v1.2.alpha1 release.
Attaching to the imap process in gdb and interrupting to get a stack trace every once in a while, I find it's mostly (80%) in this:
#2 0xb7e28ff3 in readdir64 () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6 #3 0x0806fbe1 in maildir_scan_dir (ctx=0x80f6170, new_dir=false) at maildir-sync.c:421
I guess the problem isn't then threading but maildir syncing.. There would be two solutions to avoid this:
Switch to dbox format. :)
Add a new mail_assume_only_dovecots=yes setting that makes Dovecot not rescan the maildir unless it clearly sees that the timestamp has changed under it. That also means that if there was an external non-Dovecot modification to cur/ at the same second as Dovecot was doing its own changes the external modification wouldn't be seen (until something forced a rescan).
I guess 2) would be nice, but I don't know when I'll have time to implement it.
Can maybe Dovecot show me the last cached version of the folder so I can see the index immediately, and in the background re-sync that? That way opening folders could be instantaneous, and each next IMAP action could give me a chance to see the synchronized state once it's ready.
I guess that would be the 3) possibility. :) But way too much trouble.
Hi,
I'm using delivery like Postifx->Amavis->Dovecot LDA Is there a possibility to deliver mail marked as spam (Subject, header) to Junk folder?
/Toms
tomzu@buu.lv wrote:
Hi,
I'm using delivery like Postifx->Amavis->Dovecot LDA Is there a possibility to deliver mail marked as spam (Subject, header) to Junk folder?
do not hijack threads. compose a new message instead of replying to an unrelated one.
you need dovecot-sieve. then use something like:
if header :contains "X-Spam-Flag" "YES" { fileinto "Junk"; stop; }
participants (6)
-
Asheesh Laroia
-
Benjamin R. Haskell
-
Charles Marcus
-
mouss
-
Timo Sirainen
-
tomzu＠buu.lv