[gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[fire-eyes]

I have posted about this before, with no real solution, figured i'd
throw it out again see what happens.

I am using evolution 2.2.3. The speed of the filtering is atrocious. For
example, this morning I had 42 new messages, and it took 3 minutes 50
seconds to get it done, an dmove it into the appropriate folders.

People had previously suggested putting "Stop Proccessing" at the end of
each of my rules, which did in fact speed it up quite a bit. However the
remaining time is still just too long. Some mornings I have 120 or so
new messages, and I may as well just walk away for a while.

And this isn't a very slow system, mind you: Dual XP 1800+ with 1.5GB of
ram on newer seagate IDE disks.

So, any ideas out there?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[W.Kenworthy]

Not a real solution if you dont have your own mail server, but I moved
the spam and filtering to spamassassin/procmail/amavis etc onto my own
imap email server and turned off all filtering on that account.  Now its
not a problem for the main account.  An interesting aside is it seems to
take as long for the mail gateway to do its checks as evo does.

However on my work accounts, Ive found turning off junk mail online
tests sped it up a lot.

Other things that it sounds like you have tried.
1. added a stop rule to each filter
2. move the busiest filters to the top
3. use a compound filter rather than separate ones (this assumes there
is less overhead doing this - subjectively it does seem quicker)
4. dont move/copy files to a remote mail account

Most delays seem outside evo's control, though I acknowledge the filters
themselves are not the fastest.

Lastly, due to my inbuilt laziness, I use suspend2 each night, leaving
evo running on suspend.  I use the bios clock to start the machine up at
05:55 in the morning - when I stumble out of bed and stare blearily at
the screen some time after the 6am alarm has gone off, the filtering is
complete and my desktop is ready for use by the time the caffeine starts
to work ...

BillK

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 07:25 -0400, fire-eyes wrote:
> I have posted about this before, with no real solution, figured i'd
> throw it out again see what happens.
> 
> I am using evolution 2.2.3. The speed of the filtering is atrocious. For
> example, this morning I had 42 new messages, and it took 3 minutes 50
> seconds to get it done, an dmove it into the appropriate folders.
> 
> People had previously suggested putting "Stop Proccessing" at the end of
> each of my rules, which did in fact speed it up quite a bit. However the
> remaining time is still just too long. Some mornings I have 120 or so
> new messages, and I may as well just walk away for a while.
> 
> And this isn't a very slow system, mind you: Dual XP 1800+ with 1.5GB of
> ram on newer seagate IDE disks.
> 
> So, any ideas out there?
> 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[Owen Ford]

On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 09:06 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> Not a real solution if you dont have your own mail server, but I moved
> the spam and filtering to spamassassin/procmail/amavis etc onto my own
> imap email server and turned off all filtering on that account.  Now its
> not a problem for the main account.  An interesting aside is it seems to
> take as long for the mail gateway to do its checks as evo does.

I had to totally disable spam-assassin due to the slowness.  I get ~600
email every day and it was brutal.  I use bogofilter now set up with
hacked rules I found in the forum and it is blazing fast.

-- 
Owen Ford <oford@arghblech.com>
()  The ASCII Ribbon Campaign - against HTML Email
/\   and proprietary formats.
 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[fire-eyes]

On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 09:06 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> 3. use a compound filter rather than separate ones (this assumes there
> is less overhead doing this - subjectively it does seem quicker)

Thanks for the tips. The above one is the only one I don't really
understand, can you elaborate a bit?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[W.Kenworthy]

The evidence I have for this is a bit "vague" being more of an
impression that processing is faster, but it seems that evo runs one
filter on a message, then the next, and so on.  If you can almalgamate
rules that do similar functions (i.e., copy messages to the same
directory) into one compound rule, they seem to run faster as they are
dealing with fewer, albeit more complex filters.

It would be nice to know exactly how the filtering mechanism works for
this.

To re-iterate, the majority of delays (after implementing stop rules per
filter etc) are outside evo's control, particularly online spam checking
and these are areas its not really possible to do much about if you need
the functionality (and I certainly do!).  

BillK


On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 12:21 -0400, fire-eyes wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-24 at 09:06 +0800, W.Kenworthy wrote:
> > 3. use a compound filter rather than separate ones (this assumes there
> > is less overhead doing this - subjectively it does seem quicker)
> 
> Thanks for the tips. The above one is the only one I don't really
> understand, can you elaborate a bit?
> 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Evolution 2.2.3 Filtering Time (Too Long!)

[Ow Mun Heng]

On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 07:25 -0400, fire-eyes wrote:
> I am using evolution 2.2.3. The speed of the filtering is atrocious. For
> example, this morning I had 42 new messages, and it took 3 minutes 50
> seconds to get it done, an dmove it into the appropriate folders.

I don't know about you, I use this on a D600 1.4Ghz Pentium M w/ 1.5G
ram and it runs fine.

In the mornings, I fetch ~500-800 emails and it processes quite fast.

This is 2.2.3 too

Then again, I don't do spam filtering. I use the MTA to do that. Perhaps
that's the cause?

-- 
Ow Mun Heng
Gentoo/Linux on DELL D600 1.4Ghz 1.5GB RAM
98% Microsoft(tm) Free!! 
Neuromancer 10:39:56 up 3 days, 15:43, 4 users, load average: 2.27,
2.57, 2.59 


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list