From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/61260 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: James Cloos Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Severe performance regression in NoGnus Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 04:07:51 -0400 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1130573351 26735 80.91.229.2 (29 Oct 2005 08:09:11 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:09:11 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: ding-owner+m9792@lists.math.uh.edu Sat Oct 29 10:09:02 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from malifon.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.13]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EVllQ-0003vF-7m for ding-account@gmane.org; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:08:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu ident=lists) by malifon.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1EVllK-0001on-00; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:08:26 -0500 Original-Received: from nas02.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.40]) by malifon.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 3.20 #1) id 1EVll9-0001oi-00 for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:08:15 -0500 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by nas02.math.uh.edu with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1EVll6-00054Y-NV for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:08:15 -0500 Original-Received: from ore.jhcloos.com ([64.240.156.239]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1EVll5-0006KC-00 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:08:11 +0200 Original-Received: from lugabout.jhcloos.org (host-69-48-15-45.roc.choiceone.net [69.48.15.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA (168/168 bits)) (Client CN "lugabout.jhcloos.org", Issuer "ca.jhcloos.com" (verified OK)) by ore.jhcloos.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 042D11C591 for ; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 03:08:03 -0500 (CDT) Original-Received: by lugabout.jhcloos.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 147C81D0E13; Sat, 29 Oct 2005 08:07:53 +0000 (GMT) Original-To: ding@gnus.org Copyright: Copyright 2005 James Cloos X-Hashcash: 1:21:051029:ding@gnus.org::ZgtP+7zQTuhFasy6:00003Mdr Original-Lines: 62 User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/23.0.0 (gnu/linux) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Precedence: bulk Original-Sender: ding-owner@lists.math.uh.edu Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:61260 Archived-At: Comparing NoGnus (from gnus' cvs) and v5.x (from emacs' cvs) I see a massive regression in startup time. It takes No about *two hours* to start up, whereas 5.x takes only a few tens of minutes. I did a restart with functions matching '^gnus' and '^nn' instrumented and found that several functions were called more often than should be required. Each of nnmh-request-list, gnus-request-scan, nnmh-request-scan and nnmail-get-new-mail were called thrice; gnus-request-newgroups was called twice. The full list of calls that took over a minute are: ,---- | Function Name Call Count Elapsed Time Average Time | ================================ ========== ============ ============ | nnmh-request-list-1 23136 17625.744430 0.7618319687 | gnus-group-restart 1 8920.153097 8920.153097 | gnus 1 8918.801146 8918.801146 | gnus-1 1 8916.793688 8916.793688 | gnus-setup-news 1 8894.381629 8894.381629 | nnmh-request-list 3 8872.079321 2957.3597736 | gnus-find-new-newsgroups 1 5563.511609 5563.511609 | gnus-ask-server-for-new-groups 1 5563.461238 5563.461238 | gnus-request-newgroups 2 5554.888336 2777.444168 | nnmh-request-newgroups 1 5553.105174 5553.105174 | gnus-read-active-file 1 3321.319827 3321.319827 | gnus-read-active-file-1 2 3321.3077359 1660.6538679 | gnus-request-scan 3 1671.766675 557.25555833 | nnmh-request-scan 3 1671.766453 557.25548433 | nnmail-get-new-mail 3 1671.766402 557.25546733 | nnmail-activate 1 1671.51756 1671.51756 | gnus-request-list 1 1647.456813 1647.456813 | nnheader-directory-files 23136 1099.5671810 0.0475262439 `---- (There are 7703 directories under ~/Mail/Folders.) I'm working on a better setup (using the filesystem as a database is getting long in the tooth, much as it did with inn(8) some years ago). Until then, however, it would be cool to be able to restart w/o such a long delay. Diffing the two trees hasn't yet led me to the culprit. Going back and forth between the two version is also a problem; in any group where anything was cached by 5.x, No is unable to open any but the first such article shown in the *Summary* buffer. Any attempt to pull up or operate on any such article jumps to the first one instead. Even things like removing the marks. Also, any unread and unmarked mail disappears when moving to No. So I'm highly motivated to stay with No and not bounce between them. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -JimC -- James H. Cloos, Jr.