No Gnus 0.3 slower than Oort Gnus 0.24 spam handling

No Gnus 0.3 slower than Oort Gnus 0.24 spam handling

[Alberto L]

Hi all,

I recently upgraded from Oort 0.24 to No 0.30 and my spam handling has
become quite slow.  Here is my situation:

- I use nnfolder mail storage
my spam handling configuration (using bogofilter):
- splits spam into mail.spam.temp
- on exiting, spam in all groups is moved to mail.spam.save
- mail.spam.temp and mail.spam.save are spam groups
- the spam process destination for mail.spam.save is nil

When I enter mail.spam.temp to check for false spam positives, on
quitting it all spam-marked messages are moved to mail.spam.save.
This is quite slower with No 0.30 w.r.t. Oort 0.24 because,
apparently, both mail.spam.temp and mail.spam.save are written to
disk each time a single message is moved.  With Oort 0.24 as far as I
can understand both groups are written to disk only once.

I include some bits of my spam configuration:

  (setq
   spam-split-group "mail.spam.temp"
   spam-junk-mailgroups
   '("mail.spam.temp" "mail.spam.save")

   gnus-spam-process-newsgroups
   '(
     ("^mail\\.incoming\\.....-..-..$"
      ((spam spam-use-bogofilter)))
     ("^mail\\.spam\\.train$"
      ;; ((spam spam-use-blacklist))
      ;; ((ham spam-use-whitelist))
      ((ham spam-use-bogofilter))
      ((spam spam-use-bogofilter)))
     ("^mail\\.spam\\.save$"
      ((ham spam-use-bogofilter)))
     )

   gnus-spam-process-destinations
   '(
     ("^mail\\.spam\\.save$" nil)
     ("^mail\\..*$" "mail.spam.save")
     )

   gnus-ham-process-destinations
   '(
     ("^mail\\.spam\\..*$" "mail.incoming.nospam")
     )
   )

Greetings,
-- 
Alberto

Re: No Gnus 0.3 slower than Oort Gnus 0.24 spam handling

[Ted Zlatanov]

On 17 Mar 2006, alberto.l@nospam.net wrote:

> I recently upgraded from Oort 0.24 to No 0.30 and my spam handling has
> become quite slow.  Here is my situation:
>
> - I use nnfolder mail storage
> my spam handling configuration (using bogofilter):
> - splits spam into mail.spam.temp
> - on exiting, spam in all groups is moved to mail.spam.save
> - mail.spam.temp and mail.spam.save are spam groups
> - the spam process destination for mail.spam.save is nil
>
> When I enter mail.spam.temp to check for false spam positives, on
> quitting it all spam-marked messages are moved to mail.spam.save.
> This is quite slower with No 0.30 w.r.t. Oort 0.24 because,
> apparently, both mail.spam.temp and mail.spam.save are written to
> disk each time a single message is moved.  With Oort 0.24 as far as I
> can understand both groups are written to disk only once.

Alberto,

thank you for the comments.

Some people on the 'ding' mailing list (which is the main vehicle for
Gnus development) have commented that nnfolder is much slower with
CVS Emacs than with the older releases.  Could this be part of the
problem?

Also, is it possible for you to use the CVS version of Gnus, so we can
debug this problem against the latest version of spam.el?

Thanks again
Ted

Re: No Gnus 0.3 slower than Oort Gnus 0.24 spam handling

[Alberto L]

Hi Ted,

>>>>> "Ted" == Ted Zlatanov <tzz@lifelogs.com> wrote:

Ted> On 17 Mar 2006, alberto.l@nospam.net wrote:
>> I recently upgraded from Oort 0.24 to No 0.30 and my spam handling
>> has become quite slow.  Here is my situation:
[...]
>> This is quite slower with No 0.30 w.r.t. Oort 0.24 because,
>> apparently, both mail.spam.temp and mail.spam.save are written to
>> disk each time a single message is moved.  With Oort 0.24 as far as
>> I can understand both groups are written to disk only once.

Ted> Alberto,

Ted> thank you for the comments.

Ted> Some people on the 'ding' mailing list (which is the main vehicle
Ted> for Gnus development) have commented that nnfolder is much slower
Ted> with CVS Emacs than with the older releases.  Could this be part
Ted> of the problem?

I use xemacs 21.4.13 (and sometimes emacs 21.3), in Linux CentOs 4.
My impression is that xemacs/emacs speed in dealing with nnfoldel
files didn't change, but No Gnus 0.30 is slower than Oort Gnus 0.24
because it has a less efficient strategy in multiple message moving,
with the nnfolder backend.  I will look in the past messages of this
group to get the coordinates one the 'ding' mailing list and will try
to collaborate there.

Ted> Also, is it possible for you to use the CVS version of Gnus, so
Ted> we can debug this problem against the latest version of spam.el?

That's OK, I will look how to get the CVS version.
Thanks for the message,
-- 
Alberto

Re: No Gnus 0.3 slower than Oort Gnus 0.24 spam handling

[Ted Zlatanov]

On 21 Mar 2006, alberto.l@nospam.net wrote:

> That's OK, I will look how to get the CVS version.

Great.  Can we continue this discussion on the ding mailing list?

Ding Mailing List <ding@gnus.org>

I'll try to fix all the problems you've noted, I just want to make
sure they are still broken in the CVS release.

Ted