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 E318D4196F3 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:37:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 0.701 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham 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 sk8TNzh8V1EP for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qy0-f172.google.com (mail-qy0-f172.google.com [209.85.221.172]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 99F00431FC1 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by qyk2 with SMTP id 2so10160267qyk.0 for ; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:from:to:subject:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; bh=rSQx0DQsW+KHqtu6+Q97uRzoaSJhvQvnMHxeUU3yAl8=; b=WEpzj+ilE7Z20imiN2D7b7wTiT1Z/XehGDfm/8VZDj44g7AuDgR+VVzv5OnWf8nDE/ R1+8DSx6zA4WGFSVMOx4n6dhdj/csbXDKccec8+igufgyzCwDZ5OP/HRXXqFag62W+h8 9xYgZw/w1pDpiIsuAVQ6vlxL+ZJZ+mmWc2WXU= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:mime-version :content-type; b=NTKT1+z/a/yRsRJowfHcIb5/sms/6XbrVNfPL+M/sA3ND/UiUFmAliY4VJ8dEYZ8yo uDBbX9zjSUq15tXpGhOQlj69FUI4Z1fl8OgbzgW97lunNws5Vdhix+swCLITFeNl2PBZ Ed22advFK8epTs2s+biSduI8iADbTd6y7eVU4= Received: by 10.229.224.133 with SMTP id io5mr9388631qcb.37.1271903854008; Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:37:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (physnat56.physics.umass.edu [128.119.50.56]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v37sm4909786qce.18.2010.04.21.19.37.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 21 Apr 2010 19:37:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Ben Gamari To: Carl Worth , John Fremlin , notmuch@notmuchmail.org Subject: Re: Notmuch success: Xapian database corrupt In-Reply-To: <874oj4wdbn.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> References: <87r5mchmji.fsf-genuine-vii@john.fremlin.org> <874oj4wdbn.fsf@yoom.home.cworth.org> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 22:37:29 -0400 Message-ID: <87r5m8xlee.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:37:36 -0000 On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 17:17:16 -0700, Carl Worth wrote: > > I'm not aware of any bugs in notmuch that can result in a corrupt Xapian > database. In fact, this can't be a bug in notmuch alone (since Xapian is > detecting the corruption). There must at least be a bug in Xapian or > else some lower-level failure is occurring (disk full?) that Xapian > can't deal with. > > I've not yet encountered a corrupt Xapian database, so I'm afraid I > don't have any tips to help you with that. > Nor have I experienced any corruption issues. I'd say just hope that it was an isolated incident. > But I'm also surprised to hear that it takes you days to incorporate > your mail into a notmuch database. I have over 600 thousand messages > myself, and it takes a few hours (maybe 4?) to incorporate all of these > messages, but not days, (also with an Intel SSD). > 6e5 messages / 4 hours = ~40 messages/s. I don't believe I have ever seen more than 0 messages per second average on my box (granted, with a spinning disk, but I'm generally getting 0.05 messages/second or so), so you are not the only one experiencing such abysmal performance. I sent a message[1] to the list about this a few weeks ago, and Olly and others had some productive input, but nothing that seemed too promising as far as fixing the issue. I then took the issue to the LKML[2], although this hasn't resulted in much progress. I recently switched from ext4 to btrfs and both are quite poor when it comes to notmuch performance, so I'm honestly not entirely convinced the problem can be placed exclusively on the file system. I know that the disk is capable of 20MByte/second sustained (peak of 60MByte/second), however I'm lucky to see a throughput of several hundred kByte/second under the workload presented by notmuch. I have plenty of perf/blktrace data of notmuch new sessions if anyone is interested, but there were unfortunately no takers on the lkml. I am under the impression that Xapian is doing some really knuckle-headed things when it comes to fsync()ing and the like, but I really have a difficult time believing that is the sole issue while others are getting perfectly acceptable performance with spinning disks. I would love to get this issue solved, but my experience is definitely quite limited in the file system/block I/O department and the semester is definitely severely limiting the amount of time I am able to invest in the problem, so I find myself pretty much at the mercy of whoever has time to parse the data. If you are that person, I would be elated to provide you with whatever data you might want/need - Ben [1] id:20100315090401.GA29891@glaive.weftsoar.net [2] id:4b9fa440.12135e0a.7fc8.ffffe745@mx.google.com