Re: [Evolution] Possible memory leak somewhere in evolution-mail

[Pascal DeMilly <list evolution newgenesys com>]

My apology. I effectually misread what you have said. But the fact
remains that there is a memory leak when filtering with a vFolder which
encompass IMAP folders I think. Should I fill a bug report on that
subject and/or do you have any ideas how I could help in finding that
leak.

Regards

Pascal

On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 00:53, Not Zed wrote:
> With all due respect, I wrote the indexing code, and the vfolder code,
> and infact, the searching code, and indexing isn't used by IMAP at all,
> I can guarantee you that.  Perhaps you misread what I said.
>
> And yes since you are using body searching in your vfolder, that is
> entirely the problem.  IMAP body searches are genereally slow.  The HEAD
> version of evolution has some code to greatly improve vfolder
> performance in this case.
>
>
> On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 14:53, Pascal DeMilly wrote:
> > With all due respect I disagree. This vFolder was filtering some text in
> > message body contents with vFolder source set to "all locals and active
> > remote folder" which filtered messages in my IMAP folders (I only have
> > IMAP folders with messages in it, even my sent folder is IMAP, so I know
> > that it worked for sure)
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Pascal
> >
> > PS: Since removing that vFolder filtering I haven't experienced any
> > slowdown or visible memory leaks.
> >
> > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 21:18, Not Zed wrote:
> > > Which vfolder was that?
> > >
> > > IMAP doesn't use the indexing code at all, it is only local folders that
> > > use it.
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 04:22, Pascal DeMilly wrote:
> > > > Also since I removed my vFolder entry, Evolution access to my IMAP
> > > > server is way faster. Sometimes it would take 5 seconds or more to
> > > > switch messages in one folder. I thought that might have been due to the
> > > > new indexing that was discussed in the list but obviously it must have
> > > > had to do with the vFolder as it is the only thing I removed.
> > > >
> > > > Hope that helps you pinpointing the problem in some way
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > >
> > > > Pascal
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:58, Ettore Perazzoli wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2002-04-09 at 10:31, Not Zed wrote:
> > > > > > You could try using 'memprof' on evolution-mail (you run 'memprof
> > > > > > evolution-mail' before starting evolution) to try and track down what is
> > > > > > eating so much memory.  We do occasionally but I certainly dont
> > > > > > experience that problem with evolution (but i am using an earlier
> > > > > > version).
> > > > >
> > > > > Somebody else reported this to me a while ago on IRC and I asked him to
> > > > > run memprof but memprof just got all confused and reported nothing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Although, this seems to be related to IMAP filtering.  (I.e. if I
> > > > > remember correctly, he didn't seem to have any memory leaks if he turned
> > > > > off all the indexes.)
> > > > >
> > > > > -- 
> > > > > Ettore
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> evolution maillist  -  evolution ximian com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution