Bug 293175

Summary: KMail/Akonadi heavy disk write usage when trying to remove duplicated mails
Product: [Applications] kmail2 Reporter: LuRan <hephooey_dev>
Component: generalAssignee: kdepim bugs <kdepim-bugs>
Status: RESOLVED UNMAINTAINED    
Severity: normal CC: sskyman
Priority: NOR    
Version: unspecified   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: Unlisted Binaries   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description LuRan 2012-02-02 22:58:55 UTC
Version:           unspecified
OS:                Linux

I have a maildir with 25k mails and about 3 GB large, because some mismatch with the server kmail downloaded about 30 duplicated mails, I used the ctrl+* to remove the duplicated mails, and it took several hours, while kmail 1 usually can finish in a few minutes. And when I used iotop to check the io activity, several akonadi agent like akonadi_mailfilter_agent, WRITE to the disk 10M/s. I could understand it read a lot of data in order to determine the duplicated mails, but it is hard to explain why it had to write at 10M/s for several hours to the disk?

Reproducible: Always

Steps to Reproduce:
ctrl+* in some large maildir directory

Actual Results:  
KMail/Akonadi use a lot of io and take a long time to finish

Expected Results:  
Like kmail1, finishes in a few miniute without heavy resource usage
Comment 1 Tobias 2012-10-16 21:44:36 UTC
I can confirm a simillar problem on Kubuntu 12.04.01 LTS with KMail 4.8.5.
Just runing KMail2 creates around 40 to 70 mb/s write activity to the harddisk from the akonadi job.
Comment 2 Denis Kurz 2016-09-24 17:59:17 UTC
This bug has only been reported for versions before 4.14, which have been unsupported for at least two years now. Can anyone tell if this bug still present?

If noone confirms this bug for a Framework-based version of kmail2 (version 5.0 or later, as part of KDE Applications 15.12 or later), it gets closed in about three months.
Comment 3 Denis Kurz 2017-01-07 21:56:43 UTC
Just as announced in my last comment, I close this bug. If you encounter it again in a recent version (at least 5.0 aka 15.08), please open a new one unless it already exists. Thank you for all your input.