From: Mark Walters Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:45:25 +0000 (+0100) Subject: Re: nmh + notmuch: expected to work? X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=044299ca265c87de44e5f65689e933f839b0da8f;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: nmh + notmuch: expected to work? --- diff --git a/21/ca5c9a6f62632bae8a28f9f45b5aed0ae7bfb3 b/21/ca5c9a6f62632bae8a28f9f45b5aed0ae7bfb3 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dd45ec9b7 --- /dev/null +++ b/21/ca5c9a6f62632bae8a28f9f45b5aed0ae7bfb3 @@ -0,0 +1,143 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30180431FBC + for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:45:47 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: 0.502 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 + tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, + NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=disabled +Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id i51M2hlfb1SG for ; + Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:45:39 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from mail2.qmul.ac.uk (mail2.qmul.ac.uk [138.37.6.6]) + (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) + (No client certificate requested) + by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E040A431FAF + for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 00:45:38 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from smtp.qmul.ac.uk ([138.37.6.40]) + by mail2.qmul.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1WudDr-0004tn-3k; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:45:28 +0100 +Received: from 5751dfa2.skybroadband.com ([87.81.223.162] helo=localhost) + by smtp.qmul.ac.uk with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.71) + (envelope-from ) + id 1WudDq-00031K-Id; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:45:26 +0100 +From: Mark Walters +To: Eric Gillespie , notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Subject: Re: nmh + notmuch: expected to work? +In-Reply-To: <24056.1402437857@wundagore> +References: <24056.1402437857@wundagore> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.15.2+615~g78e3a93 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/23.4.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 08:45:25 +0100 +Message-ID: <87k38nx52i.fsf@qmul.ac.uk> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii +X-Sender-Host-Address: 87.81.223.162 +X-QM-Geographic: According to ripencc, + this message was delivered by a machine in Britain (UK) (GB). +X-QM-SPAM-Info: Sender has good ham record. :) +X-QM-Body-MD5: 933cfea1fb72dbfadd7abfbc6646c8c3 (of first 20000 bytes) +X-SpamAssassin-Score: -0.1 +X-SpamAssassin-SpamBar: / +X-SpamAssassin-Report: The QM spam filters have analysed this message to + determine if it is + spam. We require at least 5.0 points to mark a message as spam. + This message scored -0.1 points. + Summary of the scoring: + * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail + provider * (markwalters1009[at]gmail.com) + * -0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list +X-QM-Scan-Virus: ClamAV says the message is clean +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 07:45:47 -0000 + + +Hello + +On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Eric Gillespie wrote: +> I'm a long-time nmh user, and I heard notmuch was supposed to +> handle mh folders, so I gave it a shot. +> +> It's crazy slow. The first 'notmuch new' took 4 hours, but maybe +> that's expected. However, every 'notmuch new' takes 4 - 10 +> hours. The only time it completes faster is if I immediately +> re-run it without incorporating new mail. In that case, it +> completes in 0.8s - 38s, which is quite reasonable for my mail. +> +> I have 18.5 GB, 1,058,370 messages in 315 directories. +> +> From the messages it prints, apparently any directory that +> changes (receives a new message) has to have all its files +> indexed from scratch. What?! + +This is definitely not expected behaviour and doesn't happen under +maildir. I would not expect it to happen under mh format but I am not +familiar with that format. + +> # re-index after some new mail (< 1000; not 704083!) +> Processed 704083 total files in 11h 7m 48s (17 files/sec.). +> Added 701791 new messages to the database. Removed 701332 messages. Detected 2136 file renames. +> +> # re-index again, no new mail +> Processed 60 total files in 40s (1 files/sec.). +> No new mail. +> +> # incorporate 1 new message +> Processed 9181 total files in 7m 54s (19 files/sec.). +> Added 9071 new messages to the database. Removed 9071 messages. Detected 12 file renames. +> +> # incorporate 1 new message +> Processed 111 total files in almost no time. +> Added 1 new message to the database. Detected 12 file renames. +> +> # incorporate 1 new message +> Processed 757 total files in 44s (17 files/sec.). +> Added 645 new messages to the database. Removed 645 messages. Detected 14 file renames. + +Is anything else accessing modifying or doing anything to the MH +hierarchy? Some things (eg http://wiki2.dovecot.org/MailboxFormat/MH) +indicate that some tools do manipulate the hierarchy (eg sortm renames +things). + +if you run notmuch new as + +notmuch new --verbose --debug + +it might spit out some more useful information as to what notmuch is +doing (*do* check that nothing it says is sensitive before posting +though!) + +Another thing you could try is +notmuch search --output=messages folder:somefolder + +before and after adding a message to somefolder (*) and seeing if that +shows significant changes. (Note message ids do say a lot about who your +correspondents are so you probably don't want to post the outputs to the +list.) + +Best wishes + +Mark + +(*) the syntax for folder based searches changed recently so it may +depend which version of notmuch you are running: i didn't see it +mentioned in your email. +