Bug 659117

Summary:	Extremely Poor Performance - Accepting Meeting Invitations
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	David Le Sage <dlesage>
Component:	evolution	Assignee:	Matthew Barnes <mbarnes>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	14	CC:	lucilanga, mbarnes, mcrha
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2010-12-02 07:32:25 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description David Le Sage 2010-12-01 23:17:13 UTC

Description of problem:
Evolution is being used as a Zimbra client.  If the user is sent more than one meeting invitation in quick succession, accepting them can lead to severe system performance problems. 


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Evolution 2.32.1-1.fc14 (64 bit)

How reproducible:
Every time.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Evolution is being used as a Zimbra email client.
2. A colleague sends two invitations in quick succession, one to book a meeting and the second to update the time of that meeting.
3. Click on the first invitation to open it and hit the "accept" button.  (It is normally a little sluggish at this stage but bearable.)
4. Move down to second email and hit the "update" button.
  
Actual results:
Severe performance detriment on entire system.  Evolution becomes extremely unresponsive for several minutes and other applications are affected.

Expected results:
Much better responsiveness.

Additional info:
This is probably related to the issue with Evolution Calendar performance I logged as https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=659115

Comment 1 Milan Crha 2010-12-02 07:32:25 UTC

Thanks for a bug report. I agree with the last comment, thus I'm marking this as a duplicate of the older bug.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 659115 ***