Re: [Evolution] communication with servers has stopped.
Am Freitag, den 02.11.2012, 17:24 -0600 schrieb Brian A Anderson: > I have seen this same symptom many a time. > After many days of running and successful connections to the servers, > all of a sudden Evolution cannot make a connection. > It's only conclusion is that the password that it has, that I NEVER > changed is suddenly wrong. And that I MUST reenter them immediately. > A quick cancel on the current op and x out of evolution. Come back a > half hour later and the passwords are miraculously correct. > > This is a red flag. My interpretation is that the connections went bad > because the servers are down. Maybe the connection timed out ? I remember having read that Evolution's default time out is much shorter than the one of Outlook and I don't see a possibility to configure it. -- Thomas Prost ProstsInfo ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
[Evolution] Migration from mbox to maildir taking for ever
I have had a Ubuntu laptop for the last 18 months or so. I installed Ubuntu 11.04 which happened to come with Evolution and I was quite happy with it. I didn't upgrade from 11.04 until forced to because of known problems with VMware. I have just run the upgrade to 11.10 (because 11.04 is no longer supported) and got a message saying I had to reformat my evolution files. I said yes to that and nothing seemed to happen,but I checked the system monitor and one of the four CPUs was 100% loaded. I found a posting on a forum somewhere that suggested that all I needed to do was be patient. That has been the case for nearly 24 hours now - I am not using the computer and just hoping to see a good result - but advice would be welcome. There is plenty of disk space - over 400Gbytes. Presumably, if I want to make use of the .tar file with my Evolution backup in it, I will have to re-install Ubuntu 11.04 to be able to do that? Will the maildir format be more efficient? - I have a large volume of email traffic and Evolution was noticeably slowing down in normal use. Hoping for help. Margaret ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
[Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
Evolution 3.2.3 Fedora 16 Gnome 3 I have a 'minor' issue with the speed of restores under Evolution 3.2.3. I keep two laptops in sync, by backing up Evolution on the 'master' and restoring it on the 'back-up'. This works ok but has become noticeably slower after using a NAS device to store the backup. The backup tar itself is circa 2GB for a 4GB installation. What appears to occur is that the backup tar file is scanned multiple times before the restore begins in earnest. It seems to check the tar file for the existence of a directory control file, then after finding it, scan the file to restore it, then presumably after inspecting the contents of the control file, extracts the tar file to the indicated directory structure. I'm not sure that is what happens, but it looks like what is happening when I 'ps' the tasks while the restore is running. The speed issue is partly caused by the speed of the NAS and the network, but has anyone else had timing issue with large'ish restores? ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:30 +, Steve T wrote: > Evolution 3.2.3 Fedora 16 Gnome 3 > > I have a 'minor' issue with the speed of restores under Evolution 3.2.3. > I keep two laptops in sync, by backing up Evolution on the 'master' and > restoring it on the 'back-up'. This works ok but has become noticeably > slower after using a NAS device to store the backup. > The backup tar itself is circa 2GB for a 4GB installation. What appears > to occur is that the backup tar file is scanned multiple times before > the restore begins in earnest. It seems to check the tar file for the > existence of a directory control file, then after finding it, scan the > file to restore it, then presumably after inspecting the contents of the > control file, extracts the tar file to the indicated directory > structure. I'm not sure that is what happens, but it looks like what is > happening when I 'ps' the tasks while the restore is running. > > The speed issue is partly caused by the speed of the NAS and the > network, but has anyone else had timing issue with large'ish restores? A couple of points: 1) You don't say how the NAS is connected. NFS? Samba? Rsync? Rsync is possibly more efficient in this use case, since all the heavy lifting will be done on the end machines rather than the NAS. 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. (Doesn't everybody?) poc ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 09:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:30 +, Steve T wrote: > > Evolution 3.2.3 Fedora 16 Gnome 3 > > > > I have a 'minor' issue with the speed of restores under Evolution 3.2.3. > > I keep two laptops in sync, by backing up Evolution on the 'master' and > > restoring it on the 'back-up'. This works ok but has become noticeably > > slower after using a NAS device to store the backup. > > The backup tar itself is circa 2GB for a 4GB installation. What appears > > to occur is that the backup tar file is scanned multiple times before > > the restore begins in earnest. It seems to check the tar file for the > > existence of a directory control file, then after finding it, scan the > > file to restore it, then presumably after inspecting the contents of the > > control file, extracts the tar file to the indicated directory > > structure. I'm not sure that is what happens, but it looks like what is > > happening when I 'ps' the tasks while the restore is running. > > > > The speed issue is partly caused by the speed of the NAS and the > > network, but has anyone else had timing issue with large'ish restores? > > A couple of points: > > 1) You don't say how the NAS is connected. NFS? Samba? Rsync? Rsync is > possibly more efficient in this use case, since all the heavy lifting > will be done on the end machines rather than the NAS. > > 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this > scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use > it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. > (Doesn't everybody?) > > poc > Patrick, The NAS is mounted via NFS. I'll look into Rsync - I thought that was just a 'copy' utility rather than a connection method? I do back up my entire 'home' directory - but I have two laptops that may be on different versions of the OS etc. So, I tend to only restore specifics on the 'secondary' rather than taking my entire 'home' directory. > ___ > evolution-list mailing list > evolution-list@gnome.org > To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 09:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this > scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use > it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. > (Doesn't everybody?) On that point, the Backup/Restore tool was originally written as a workaround for the fact that account data was kept in GConf, and that copying your (at the time) $HOME/.evolution folder to another machine did not actually carry over your accounts, as many users (justifiably) expected. Just to be perfectly clear: the Backup/Restore tool is a hack. Now that the account storage problem is finally solved in Evolution 3.6, I'm starting to question whether it's still worth maintaining the tool, given the abuse it takes and the frequent complaints of it not working properly and lack of attention it gets from developers. To be honest I'm rather inclined to just throw away the backup part, and temporarily keep the restore part as a standalone command-line tool, and remove any mention of it from the user interface. How much of a disruption would this cause for users? Matthew Barnes ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:17 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 09:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this > > scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use > > it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. > > (Doesn't everybody?) > > On that point, the Backup/Restore tool was originally written as a > workaround for the fact that account data was kept in GConf, and that > copying your (at the time) $HOME/.evolution folder to another machine > did not actually carry over your accounts, as many users (justifiably) > expected. > > Just to be perfectly clear: the Backup/Restore tool is a hack. > > Now that the account storage problem is finally solved in Evolution 3.6, > I'm starting to question whether it's still worth maintaining the tool, > given the abuse it takes and the frequent complaints of it not working > properly and lack of attention it gets from developers. > > To be honest I'm rather inclined to just throw away the backup part, and > temporarily keep the restore part as a standalone command-line tool, and > remove any mention of it from the user interface. > > How much of a disruption would this cause for users? > > Matthew Barnes I thought it was the suggested was of migration between disparate releases? If I want to move an 'x' Evolution release to say a 'y' release, what way would there be of doing it without backup/restore? > ___ > evolution-list mailing list > evolution-list@gnome.org > To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
[Evolution] OT: Unwanted deletion of old messages with AOL
Dear Evolution folks, I have two AOL account I have set up in 2008 and I had set up with Evolution using IMAP. The last message I received is from February 2009. Since then I did not care about this account anymore and did not update it when AOL changed the server URL again from imap.de.aol.com to imap.aol.com. Now logging in using their Web interface after over two years no messages are shown anymore. Locally with the account where I have updated the server URL no messages are either. With the account which the old address (and therefore no connection) there are messages shown, but in AOL’s Web interface nothing is shown. So my conclusion is that AOL deleted the old messages without asking me. Also I did not find such a configuration setting in AOL’s Web interface settings. Also the updated account now displays two inboxes. Does somebody of you know what could have happened? Thanks, Paul signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
> > Now that the account storage problem is finally solved in Evolution 3.6, > I'm starting to question whether it's still worth maintaining the tool, > given the abuse it takes and the frequent complaints of it not working > properly and lack of attention it gets from developers. > > To be honest I'm rather inclined to just throw away the backup part, and > temporarily keep the restore part as a standalone command-line tool, and > remove any mention of it from the user interface. > > How much of a disruption would this cause for users? I was going to say "I don't see any problem with that" - but I actually do envisage lots of problems, mainly from people asking "where is the backup and restore". If all the Evo data and settings are now in flat files, is it feasible to just produce a sample shell script to show how to move all the data from one machine to another and put it in the FAQ? P. ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] communication with servers has stopped.
Most likely a timeout at the TCP open/connect phase. Nothing that should require the password to be reentered, yet most mail clients feel the need to demand the password be reentered. And Evolution is no exception to this. On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:37 +0100, Thomas Prost wrote: > Am Freitag, den 02.11.2012, 17:24 -0600 schrieb Brian A Anderson: > > I have seen this same symptom many a time. > > After many days of running and successful connections to the servers, > > all of a sudden Evolution cannot make a connection. > > It's only conclusion is that the password that it has, that I NEVER > > changed is suddenly wrong. And that I MUST reenter them immediately. > > A quick cancel on the current op and x out of evolution. Come back a > > half hour later and the passwords are miraculously correct. > > > > This is a red flag. My interpretation is that the connections went bad > > because the servers are down. > > Maybe the connection timed out ? > I remember having read that Evolution's default time out is much shorter > than the one of Outlook and I don't see a possibility to configure it. ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
> I thought it was the suggested was of migration between disparate > releases? > If I want to move an 'x' Evolution release to say a 'y' release, what > way would there > be of doing it without backup/restore? The same as you backup and restore all the rest of your data - there is code in Evo to migrate old settings, so just restoring your backed up home directory to a new machine will also copy over all the Evolution settings and data. How do you migrate all the data for all the rest of your applications?? P. ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 15:29 +, Steve T wrote: > I thought it was the suggested was of migration between disparate > releases? > If I want to move an 'x' Evolution release to say a 'y' release, what > way would there > be of doing it without backup/restore? You need only upgrade your Evolution package, and any necessary data migration will be handled automatically on the next start. "yum upgrade" or "apt-get dist-upgrade" (depending on your distro) is sufficient. Or, if upgrading your whole system from installation media, choosing a non-destructive upgrade option is sufficient. We have never recommended the Back/Restore tool as an upgrade solution. Matthew Barnes ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 16:11 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > If all the Evo data and settings are now in flat files, is it feasible > to just produce a sample shell script to show how to move all the data > from one machine to another and put it in the FAQ? Yeah, you'd just copy or zip up files in $HOME/.local/share/evolution $HOME/.config/evolution and optionally $HOME/.cache/evolution It's already alluded to in: http://library.gnome.org/users/evolution/stable/data-storage.html.en But we could put more explicit instructions in: http://library.gnome.org/users/evolution/stable/backup-restore.html.en Unfortunately it's difficult to extract Evolution-specific settings from dconf's on-disk binary blob, but we don't keep anything real critical in dconf nowadays; mostly just one-click preference values. Currently even the Backup tool leaves them behind. Matthew Barnes ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 11:25 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 15:29 +, Steve T wrote: > > I thought it was the suggested was of migration between disparate > > releases? > > If I want to move an 'x' Evolution release to say a 'y' release, what > > way would there > > be of doing it without backup/restore? > > You need only upgrade your Evolution package, and any necessary data > migration will be handled automatically on the next start. > > "yum upgrade" or "apt-get dist-upgrade" (depending on your distro) is > sufficient. Or, if upgrading your whole system from installation media, > choosing a non-destructive upgrade option is sufficient. > > We have never recommended the Back/Restore tool as an upgrade solution. > > Matthew Barnes > OK, I must have misunderstood what was being said. I thought I had seen backup/restore mentioned in conjunction with upgrading, and I can find this: http://library.gnome.org/users/evolution/stable/index.html.en#data-migration-and-sync ...that appears to link backup/restore with migrating and synch'ing (which is what I'm doing)...but I don't think it was that that I read before. I thought I had read it in some FAQ somewhere. I would have thought that a specific Evolution backup/restore is a good thing. It gives a single file that can be ported, rather than having to know where Evolution stores it's data. ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 16:06 +, Pete Biggs wrote: > > I thought it was the suggested was of migration between disparate > > releases? > > If I want to move an 'x' Evolution release to say a 'y' release, what > > way would there > > be of doing it without backup/restore? > > The same as you backup and restore all the rest of your data - there is > code in Evo to migrate old settings, so just restoring your backed up > home directory to a new machine will also copy over all the Evolution > settings and data. > > How do you migrate all the data for all the rest of your applications?? > > P. > Pete, To me it depends on what the application is. If I'm using a database, I would tend to use the databases backup and restore utility (as I do for Informix and Postgresql). If I'm backing up my own applications, I know where the data is and what the implications are, so will happily backup the structure and restore it. Basically, if the application provides a backup and restore, I would tend to use that rather than backing up a 'structure' - as the problem with backup up a structure is in knowing where all the data is. I would assume that the product knows where all its data is, and by using the products backup/restore can't end up with mismatched or missing data/settings. > ___ > evolution-list mailing list > evolution-list@gnome.org > To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 11:52 -0500, Matthew Barnes wrote: > Unfortunately it's difficult to extract Evolution-specific settings from > dconf's on-disk binary blob, but we don't keep anything real critical in > dconf nowadays; mostly just one-click preference values. Currently even > the Backup tool leaves them behind. Hi, nope, it does save them in the backup too, see: http://git.gnome.org/browse/evolution/tree/modules/backup-restore/evolution-backup-tool.c#n324 I do not know, but I would keep there the tool, even it's just an UI for tar/gzip command calls. Bye, Milan ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On 6 November 2012 10:38, Steve T wrote: > ** > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 09:36 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 10:30 +, Steve T wrote: > > Evolution 3.2.3 Fedora 16 Gnome 3 > > > > I have a 'minor' issue with the speed of restores under Evolution 3.2.3. > > I keep two laptops in sync, by backing up Evolution on the 'master' and > > restoring it on the 'back-up'. This works ok but has become noticeably > > slower after using a NAS device to store the backup. > > The backup tar itself is circa 2GB for a 4GB installation. What appears > > to occur is that the backup tar file is scanned multiple times before > > the restore begins in earnest. It seems to check the tar file for the > > existence of a directory control file, then after finding it, scan the > > file to restore it, then presumably after inspecting the contents of the > > control file, extracts the tar file to the indicated directory > > structure. I'm not sure that is what happens, but it looks like what is > > happening when I 'ps' the tasks while the restore is running. > > > > The speed issue is partly caused by the speed of the NAS and the > > network, but has anyone else had timing issue with large'ish restores? > > A couple of points: > > 1) You don't say how the NAS is connected. NFS? Samba? Rsync? Rsync is > possibly more efficient in this use case, since all the heavy lifting > will be done on the end machines rather than the NAS. > > 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this > scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use > it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. > (Doesn't everybody?) > > poc > > > Patrick, > The NAS is mounted via NFS. I'll look into Rsync - I thought that was just > a 'copy' utility rather than a connection method? > Rsync will copy the differences between two sets of files in order to reconcile them. Thus it's generally much more efficient than just copying the entire set (except the first time of course). Of course in the specific case of Evo backup/restore, there is only one file involved, but even so rsync will try and send only the differences. The only real test is to try it and see i.e. take the backup as a local file, rsync it with the NAS, rsync the NAS with a file on the target machine and restore from that. Keep the the copy on the NAS of course, otherwise there won't be any speedup on the second and subsequent turns. poc ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
Am Dienstag, den 06.11.2012, 09:36 -0430 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > > A couple of points: > > 1) You don't say how the NAS is connected. NFS? Samba? Rsync? Rsync is > possibly more efficient in this use case, since all the heavy lifting > will be done on the end machines rather than the NAS. > > 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this > scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use > it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. > (Doesn't everybody?) I've been thinking about that, but didn't find any sufficient attempt to it, yet. How do you do it ? -- Thomas Prost ProstsInfo ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
Re: [Evolution] Speed of restore - Evolution 3.2.3
On Tue, 2012-11-06 at 23:30 +0100, Thomas Prost wrote: > Am Dienstag, den 06.11.2012, 09:36 -0430 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan: > > > > > A couple of points: > > > > 1) You don't say how the NAS is connected. NFS? Samba? Rsync? Rsync is > > possibly more efficient in this use case, since all the heavy lifting > > will be done on the end machines rather than the NAS. > > > > 2) AFAIK Evo backup and restore is not really designed for this > > scenario. It's more for migrating to a new system. In fact I never use > > it even for regular backups as I already back up my entire account. > > (Doesn't everybody?) > > I've been thinking about that, but didn't find any sufficient attempt to > it, yet. > How do you do it ? How do I do what? I'm not sure which point you're referring to. I back up my account (and other stuff) using rsnapshot. I don't back up my Evo information separately. poc ___ evolution-list mailing list evolution-list@gnome.org To change your list options or unsubscribe, visit ... https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/evolution-list
