Bug#234795: Need more information
Hi there,
I need more information to debug this. Please either confirm the bug and
provide more information, or mark this bug as "not a bug".
grepmail uses Mail::Mbox::MessageParser, which is designed to use memory
proportional to the largest email message in a mailbox. I verified that it
does indeed operate this way, using a 54MB mailbox:
mbox size: 56683943
max email size: 11182857
max read buffer: 11184795 <-- Biggest size of M::M::MP's read buffer
folder_reader: 11186558 <-- Biggest size of the M::M::MP Perl object
Some stats from ps(1):
Plain text mailbox:
min real memory: 4976640
min virtual memory: 618000384
max real memory: 38674432
max virtual memory: 651546624
Gzip compressed:
min real memory: 5005312
min virtual memory: 618016768
max real memory: 38694912
max virtual memory: 651563008
I also tried a 540MB mailbox, created by concatenating the mailbox 10
times:
Plain text x10:
min real memory: 4976640
min virtual memory: 618000384
max real memory: 40292352
max virtual memory: 652021760
Gzip compressed x10:
min real memory: 5005312
min virtual memory: 618016768
max real memory: 40284160
max virtual memory: 652038144
The numbers above were basically the same for a 23KB mailbox. Also note
that this command:
perl -e 'system "ps -o rss,vsz $$"'
consumes 1175552 real and 615645184 virtual memory, so the numbers above
are not out of the ordinary.
If you could run the attached anonymize_mailbox script on your mailbox,
verify that memory usage is still bad, then send the mailbox to me, I can
debug this better.
Another idea: perhaps your mailbox is malformed, such that grepmail only
sees 1 email in the whole mailbox. You can check this by running:
grepmail -r . my_big_mailbox
If you want to confirm that you have a very large email in your mailbox,
find this line in grepmail:
my $email = $folder_reader->read_next_email();
and follow it with this line:
print length($$email) . "\n";
then run something like:
grepmail nonexistent_pattern my_big_mailbox | sort -n
Regards,
David
_____________________________________________________________________
David Coppit http://coppit.org/
Reply to: