8:58 p.m.
On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 19:42 +0800, Emfox Zhou wrote:
On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Patrick Ohly <patrick.ohly(a)intel.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 2014-07-26 at 16:45 +0800, Emfox Zhou wrote:
>
> OK, after try several times, I found there's some log at
very last
> lines:
>
>
> [2014-07-25 23:49:41.206] Slow sync and not resuming -> all
items are
> first reported sop_wants_replace (will become add later)
> [2014-07-25 23:49:41.206] addressbook: reading
6f14569e895e1499 from
> cache
> [2014-07-25 23:49:41.206] addressbook: requested 1779,
retrieved 1779
> from server in 36 queries, misses 0/1779 (0%)
> [2014-07-25 23:49:41.206] addressbook: ReadItemAsKey
> aID=(6f14569e895e1499,) res=0
> +[2014-07-25 23:49:41.206] 'ScriptExecute' - Start executing
Script,
> name=afterreadscript [--][++] [->end] [->enclosing]
> [2014-07-25 23:49:41.214] Fetched record data from DB with
> localID=6f14569e895e1499
> [2014-07-25 23:49:41.214] Item LocalID='6f14569e895e1499',
> RemoteID='', operation=wants-replace, size:
> [maxlocal,maxremote,actual]
>
>
> How could it be 1779 contacts, while I has only 979
contacts? (there's
> also
> 154 contacts in google plus circle, I don't know if it
matters)
I don't know what Google reports to you via CardDAV.
You can check with:
syncevolution --print-items <phone config name> addressbook
and get the actual content with:
syncevolution --export - <phone config name> addressbook
> So that's sure the phone received more than 1000 contacts
and refused
> to
> continue the syncing. I see 'reading from .... cache', maybe
it's the
> earlier
> data not successfully synced. Does 'rm -rf
~/.cache/syncevolution'
> fully
> clear the cache, or any other place I should purge?
No. The debug message refers to the in-memory read-ahead
cache. It gets
filled anew during each run.
syncevolution --export - c102 addressbook |grep "BEGIN" |wc -l
979
So, it's correct.
You seem to have data dumps and comparison at the start of the sync
active. That's why most contacts were requested twice - once during the
data dump, then again during the actual sync. So 1779 is probably
correct, too.
Don't know why, and I'd like to give up, since my contacts
will soon get more than 1000, it's not so realistic to keep the old
phone
synced.
Your choice. I still think it might have something to do with the
specific contact that failed to get accepted by the phone.
--
Best Regards, Patrick Ohly
The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although
I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way
represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak
on behalf of Intel on this matter.