Some Feedback
Eddy Nigg
I've been using the nightlies of TB since development started again and
I had a very good experience mostly. However since the recent changes
which coincided with enabling Gloda as default my TB has become
unresponsive and at times very slow, CPU hungry too.
Specially when using the local Inbox, deleting or moving somewhat bigger
messages around locks up TB for tens of seconds. IMAP on the other hand
doesn't seem to be affected that much, but sometimes when writing a
message it appears to me that when TB tries to save it as a draft
automatically, it again can lock up everything including writing for
tens of seconds.
I use a fairly new computer and with sufficient RAM, I don't believe
that it's under-powered. Instead, TB has become very fast and very
responsive prior to enabling Gloda, it's a PAIN to work with it now. In
any case I'm not using the smart-view of folders, just the regular view
since it messed up my accounts and folders anyway.
I'm not sure how useful it would be to file a bug report with the
information at hand. But I suggest to check it out, use some big mail
accounts, POP3, IMAP, NEWS all together. Put into the mix some
certificates for signing too.
--
Regards
Signer: Eddy Nigg, StartCom Ltd.
XMPP: star...@startcom.org
Blog: http://blog.startcom.org/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/eddy_nigg
Wayne Mery
> David and Friends,
>
> I've been using the nightlies of TB since development started again and
> I had a very good experience mostly. However since the recent changes
> which coincided with enabling Gloda as default my TB has become
> unresponsive and at times very slow, CPU hungry too.
>
> Specially when using the local Inbox, deleting or moving somewhat bigger
> messages around locks up TB for tens of seconds. IMAP on the other hand
> doesn't seem to be affected that much, but sometimes when writing a
> message it appears to me that when TB tries to save it as a draft
> automatically, it again can lock up everything including writing for
> tens of seconds.
>
> I use a fairly new computer and with sufficient RAM, I don't believe
> that it's under-powered. Instead, TB has become very fast and very
> responsive prior to enabling Gloda, it's a PAIN to work with it now. In
> any case I'm not using the smart-view of folders, just the regular view
> since it messed up my accounts and folders anyway.
>
> I'm not sure how useful it would be to file a bug report with the
> information at hand. But I suggest to check it out, use some big mail
> accounts, POP3, IMAP, NEWS all together. Put into the mix some
> certificates for signing too.
Eddy, It would be very useful to file the bug so this can get sorted
before release.
Eddy Nigg
>
> Eddy, It would be very useful to file the bug so this can get sorted
> before release.
>
I would like to, I'm simply not sure what to file. Certainly a bug with
"Thunderbird is slow" doesn't really help anything.
Actually I expected to hear similar experiences by others which could
lead to some more information. If this is only affecting me, than this
might be a local issue - even though I suspect that's not the case.
Peter Lairo
> On 09/30/2009 08:16 AM, Wayne Mery:
>>
>> Eddy, It would be very useful to file the bug so this can get sorted
>> before release.
>>
>
> I would like to, I'm simply not sure what to file. Certainly a bug with
> "Thunderbird is slow" doesn't really help anything.
>
> Actually I expected to hear similar experiences by others which could
> lead to some more information. If this is only affecting me, than this
> might be a local issue - even though I suspect that's not the case.
It's not just you. Thunderbird nightlies have been noticeably and
annoyingly slow for weeks. It seems to be affecting IMAP and compacting.
It makes displaying and switching between messages and switching folders
painfully slow. My guess is that it's the new "gloda" search
database-thingy that seems to be indexing at the least opportune times.
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
The browser you can trust: www.Firefox.com
Reclaim Your Inbox: www.GetThunderbird.com
Islam: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
Israel: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths2/
Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster: http://www.venganza.org/
Anthropogenic Global Warming skepsis: http://tinyurl.com/AGW-Skepsis
Ron K.
> On 09/30/2009 08:16 AM, Wayne Mery:
>>
>> Eddy, It would be very useful to file the bug so this can get sorted
>> before release.
>>
>
> I would like to, I'm simply not sure what to file. Certainly a bug with
> "Thunderbird is slow" doesn't really help anything.
>
> Actually I expected to hear similar experiences by others which could
> lead to some more information. If this is only affecting me, than this
> might be a local issue - even though I suspect that's not the case.
>
I have a suggestion for a test. Tb ships with RAM cache of4mb, try bumping
that to 32 or 64mb. A second test invovles the Disk Cahe, which Tb3
supports. Try playing with that in a second round of tests. At worst it
will burn some time. However the data could be useful to rule out or in any
cache association.
--
Ron K.
Who is General Failure, and why is he searching my HDD?
Kernel Restore reported Major Error used BSOD to msg the enemy!
Bryan Clark
> I have a suggestion for a test. Tb ships with RAM cache of4mb, try
> bumping that to 32 or 64mb. A second test invovles the Disk Cahe, which
> Tb3 supports. Try playing with that in a second round of tests. At worst
> it will burn some time. However the data could be useful to rule out or
> in any cache association.
>
How do you set RAM cache?
I know you can set disk cache via the prefs (Adv -> Network & Disk Space
-> Disk Space)
Thanks,
~ Bryan
Ron K.
Bryan, it's a hidden pref that needs Config Edit or about:config to ammend.
Look for [browser.cache.memory.capacity]
Some testing done by the developer of the "Stationery" extension (does HTML
Templates), found that 64Mb of cache was needed for some templates to
perform properly with Tb2.
Wayne Mery
> On 30.09.2009 18:41, Eddy Nigg wrote:
>> On 09/30/2009 08:16 AM, Wayne Mery:
>>>
>>> Eddy, It would be very useful to file the bug so this can get sorted
>>> before release.
>>>
>>
>> I would like to, I'm simply not sure what to file. Certainly a bug with
>> "Thunderbird is slow" doesn't really help anything.
>>
>> Actually I expected to hear similar experiences by others which could
>> lead to some more information. If this is only affecting me, than this
>> might be a local issue - even though I suspect that's not the case.
>
> It's not just you. Thunderbird nightlies have been noticeably and
> annoyingly slow for weeks. It seems to be affecting IMAP and compacting.
> It makes displaying and switching between messages and switching folders
> painfully slow. My guess is that it's the new "gloda" search
> database-thingy that seems to be indexing at the least opportune times.
"Weeks" is perhaps not sufficiently specific. And there are too many
factors and components that can make guesses a bad thing. Which is one
reason why it's important to examine each person's case in a bug.
The key change in indexer performance happened in bug 465353 with
checkin on 2009-08-28. So in terms of indexing we are primarily, but not
exclusively, interested in issues found/bugs created on or after that date.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&keywords_type=allwords&keywords=perf&product=MailNews+Core&product=Thunderbird&resolution=FIXED&resolution=---&bug_severity=blocker&bug_severity=critical&bug_severity=major&bug_severity=normal&chfieldfrom=++2009-08-28&chfieldto=Now&chfield=%5BBug+creation%5D
One thing you can test is whether you see the problem when you have
thunderbird set offline, because in that state indexing should not be
happening.
Again, filing your own bug is probably best.
Eddy Nigg
> Bryan Clark on 9/30/2009 3:33 PM, keyboarded a reply:
>> On 30/09/09 12:24 PM, Ron K. wrote:
>>> I have a suggestion for a test. Tb ships with RAM cache of4mb, try
>>> bumping that to 32 or 64mb. A second test invovles the Disk Cahe, which
>>> Tb3 supports. Try playing with that in a second round of tests. At
>>> worst
>>> it will burn some time. However the data could be useful to rule out or
>>> in any cache association.
>>>
>>
>> How do you set RAM cache?
>>
>> I know you can set disk cache via the prefs (Adv -> Network & Disk
>> Space -> Disk Space)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> ~ Bryan
>
> Bryan, it's a hidden pref that needs Config Edit or about:config to
> ammend.
> Look for [browser.cache.memory.capacity]
Great, I've increased it to 65536 byte, lets see if this makes any
difference. I've had Disk Space set to 50 MB already, is this considered
sufficient?
BTW, I'm not compacting folders at all, these days we got enough disk to
share...
Eddy Nigg
> "Weeks" is perhaps not sufficiently specific. And there are too many
> factors and components that can make guesses a bad thing. Which is one
> reason why it's important to examine each person's case in a bug.
I think it started around the 12th of September, shortly or at the same
time I started to complain in the thread "Is it only me?".
> Again, filing your own bug is probably best.
Well, I guess somebody should file a bug, I'm afraid I don't have a lot
of time to offer at the moment and just dumping a bug without offering
some cooperation isn't fair either...any other takers?
Andrew Sutherland
> Specially when using the local Inbox, deleting or moving somewhat bigger
> messages around locks up TB for tens of seconds. IMAP on the other hand
> doesn't seem to be affected that much, but sometimes when writing a
There is a serious inefficiency in the current gloda local move handling
logic. If you have local folders with a lot of messages in them, it
could be quite painful. It is being worked.
Andrew
Eddy Nigg
> David and Friends,
>
> I've been using the nightlies of TB since development started again
> and I had a very good experience mostly. However since the recent
> changes which coincided with enabling Gloda as default my TB has
> become unresponsive and at times very slow, CPU hungry too.
>
> Specially when using the local Inbox, deleting or moving somewhat
> bigger messages around locks up TB for tens of seconds. IMAP on the
> other hand doesn't seem to be affected that much, but sometimes when
> writing a message it appears to me that when TB tries to save it as a
> draft automatically, it again can lock up everything including writing
> for tens of seconds.
>
> I use a fairly new computer and with sufficient RAM, I don't believe
> that it's under-powered. Instead, TB has become very fast and very
> responsive prior to enabling Gloda, it's a PAIN to work with it now.
> In any case I'm not using the smart-view of folders, just the regular
> view since it messed up my accounts and folders anyway.
>
I'm glad to report that apparently the slowness and locking has
disappeared. This was specially felt with the local POP3 accounts, much
less for IMAP. I'ts again a joy to work with it. Thanks!
Peter Lairo
> On 30.09.2009 18:41, Eddy Nigg wrote:
>> I would like to, I'm simply not sure what to file. Certainly a bug with
>> "Thunderbird is slow" doesn't really help anything.
>
> annoyingly slow for weeks. It seems to be affecting IMAP and compacting.
I've since replaced Windows XP with Windows 7 and, of course,
reinstalled everything from scratch. The extremely slow IMAP+compacting
doesn't seem to be there anymore. Perhaps it was Windows XP related ...
or a glitch in the Matrix...