Re: [Evolution] scalabilty issues resolved in next major release (2.6.28)?



On Mon, 2009-08-24 at 15:03 +0200, Jo-Erlend Schinstad wrote:
Peter and Brian: I think you should reserve your angry complaints to
your resellers, if any.

Huh?

Brian: Your bug report 582945, is one that requires quite a bit of
work just to reproduce

Not at all.  Simply subscribe to a bunch of news groups at gmane.  Not
that difficult.

You say it only affects users with
hundreds of thousands of mails in their inboxes?

I'm not sure where the usability tipping point is, but let's say it is a
few hundred thousand.

Would you agree that
most people doesn't have several hundred thousand mails in their
inboxes, even the ones that use email on a regular basis?

Sure, any that don't use evolution for NNTP as well.

Further, you complain about having reported this bug more than a month
ago and that nothing has happened. However, look at your own bug
report; you suggest that the developer subscribe to a lot of
mailinglists and just build himself a large mailbox in order to
reproduce this "sluggish behaviour"

Right.  As I said, not very difficult at all, for anyone interested in
trying to reproduce it.

You would have to subscribe to
some fairly heavy loaded mailinglists for your inbox to grow to 418k
messages in a month, wouldn't you?

No.  These are newsgroups, not mailing lists.  You subscribe to a group
and instantly get the many (tens or hundreds of) thousands of messages
that have ever been posted to the list in your summary database.

Probably a single subscription to lkml (which I tried once but had to
manually remove because it made evo *completely* unusable) would reveal
the problems, but I would suggest creeping up to that kind of capacity
with just subscribing a number of groups in the tens of thousands
counts.

And then the bug hunt is supposed
to begin.

For somebody that has worked the vfolder code, I'd imagine finding the
hogs would not be terribly difficult.  Oprofile would probably be
extremely useful here.

I think your expectations are a bit
high, don't you?

Look.  I don't need your sarcasm.  I simply asked if the scalability
issues would be fixed by the next release, highlighting a possible
usability issue.

Oh, and by the way:

[snip] "...aggregates all of my newsgroups says there are 418389 messages in it
with 418344 unread (i.e. only 5 unread messages -- yeah right).  However
I know the difference bet..." [snip]

This suggests to me like you may have a buggy calculator too, or something.

Oops.  It was 50 instead of 5.  Dude.  I misread a single order of
magnitude while the real difference should be 2 or 3 orders of magnitude
different.  Why are you splitting hairs here?  Do you really think this
is constructive?

b.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]