TBird 3.0, slowness on Mac OS X 10.5.8 on PowerPC?
bslade
10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0] on Mac OS X
10.5.8 "Power PC" architecture.
I've noticed that the new Thunderbird is running very slowly. It
seems to be a generalized slowdown. It can take a few seconds to
respond to a mouse click sometimes. When I type in words in the
quick search field, it takes a second or two before the characters are
echo'd. It's like typing at 110 baud (bits/second), for those who
used computers in the late 1970's. When I run top, I see TBird
maxing out at 100% cpu a lot during routine operations. The slowdowns
*don't* seem to be related to activity display in the "Activity
Manager" (aka the activity monitor)
I'm using SSL/TLS IMAP mailboxes with a lot of mail in them. And
there's a lot of email kept in local folders (archives). I have the
"Enable Global Search and Indexer" feature turned off. Under account
specific settings->Synchronization & Storage, I have "Keep messages
for this account on this computer" enabled.
On a Windows XP computer (with roughly the same settings/accounts as
above), TBird 3 seems to be responsive, although it does seem to use
more resources.
Is anybody else experiencing problems like this? Any suggestions for
what to look for or fix?
Thanks in advance
Ben Slade
Chevy Chase, MD
Nir
Does starting Tb in safe mode[1] make any difference in performance?
[1]<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Safe_Mode#Mac_OS_X>
Additionally you can also see this article about performance degradation
due to msf (index) file corruption
<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Application_not_responding>
Ron Hunter
> I'm running Thunderbird 3.0 [Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X
> 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.5) Gecko/20091204 Thunderbird/3.0] on Mac OS X
> 10.5.8 "Power PC" architecture.
>
> I've noticed that the new Thunderbird is running very slowly. It
> seems to be a generalized slowdown. It can take a few seconds to
> respond to a mouse click sometimes. When I type in words in the
> quick search field, it takes a second or two before the characters are
> echo'd. It's like typing at 110 baud (bits/second), for those who
> used computers in the late 1970's. When I run top, I see TBird
> maxing out at 100% cpu a lot during routine operations. The slowdowns
> *don't* seem to be related to activity display in the "Activity
> Manager" (aka the activity monitor)
>
> I'm using SSL/TLS IMAP mailboxes with a lot of mail in them. And
> there's a lot of email kept in local folders (archives). I have the
> "Enable Global Search and Indexer" feature turned off. Under account
> for this account on this computer" enabled.
>
> On a Windows XP computer (with roughly the same settings/accounts as
> above), TBird 3 seems to be responsive, although it does seem to use
> more resources.
>
> Is anybody else experiencing problems like this? Any suggestions for
> what to look for or fix?
>
> Thanks in advance
> Ben Slade
> Chevy Chase, MD
You might make sure that the global indexing is turned off.
--
Ron Hunter - rphu...@charter.net
bslade
significant difference. Also, I already had global indexing turned
off.
I'm wondering if the new TBird 3.0 is just slower because of core
changes (new Gecko 1.9.1 rendering engine, new search engine, new
client local database driver). See
http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/about/press/archive/2009-12-08-01
I wonder if there's anyway to profile where TBird is spending it's
time? Probably requires compiling the source code and getting some
sort of Javascript debugger (since a lot of TBird is implemented in
Javascript, from what I understand)
Ben
> signature.asc
> < 1KViewDownload
Leonidas Jones
> I tried safe-mode and dropping/recreating the .msf files. No
> significant difference. Also, I already had global indexing turned
> off.
>
> I'm wondering if the new TBird 3.0 is just slower because of core
> changes (new Gecko 1.9.1 rendering engine, new search engine, new
> client local database driver). See
> http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/about/press/archive/2009-12-08-01
>
> I wonder if there's anyway to profile where TBird is spending it's
> time? Probably requires compiling the source code and getting some
> sort of Javascript debugger (since a lot of TBird is implemented in
> Javascript, from what I understand)
>
> Ben
>
>
Can I suggest that we bottom post, to preserve the continity of the thread?
One thing I'm not seeing here is the processor. Is it a G4 or a G5,
what speed, iMac, Powerbook, Powermac or what?
Lee
Ron Hunter
> I tried safe-mode and dropping/recreating the .msf files. No
> significant difference. Also, I already had global indexing turned
> off.
>
> I'm wondering if the new TBird 3.0 is just slower because of core
> changes (new Gecko 1.9.1 rendering engine, new search engine, new
> client local database driver). See
> http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/about/press/archive/2009-12-08-01
>
> I wonder if there's anyway to profile where TBird is spending it's
> time? Probably requires compiling the source code and getting some
> sort of Javascript debugger (since a lot of TBird is implemented in
> Javascript, from what I understand)
>
> Ben
If anything, it seems faster to me. If you aren't already, make sure
you try it in safe mode to eliminate extension and theme influences.
bslade
This is using a Power Mac G4 with dual 867 Mhz PowerPC CPUs & 2 gbytes
of mem ( http://support.apple.com/kb/SP63 ) with the most recent
version of OS X.
Ben
bslade
I made a copy of the profile directory tree ( ~/Library/Thunderbird/
Profiles/<randomized_profile_name> ) into another login dir tree on my
Mac, then ran Thunderbird using the copied profile data under that
separate login. I deleted most of the addresses in the address book
(about 3700), and lots of saved mail in local folders (thousands,
going back several years). It didn't make any difference in terms of
performance.
Ben
Wayne Mery
> On Jan 4, 9:48 am, Leonidas Jones<LeonidasJo...@netscape.net> wrote:
>> bslade wrote:
>>> I tried safe-mode and dropping/recreating the .msf files. No
>>> significant difference. Also, I already had global indexing turned
>>> off.
>>
>>> I'm wondering if the new TBird 3.0 is just slower because of core
>>> changes (new Gecko 1.9.1 rendering engine, new search engine, new
>>> client local database driver). See
>>> http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/about/press/archive/2009-12-08-01
not really
>>> I wonder if there's anyway to profile where TBird is spending it's
>>> time? Probably requires compiling the source code and getting some
>>> sort of Javascript debugger (since a lot of TBird is implemented in
>>> Javascript, from what I understand)
>>
>>> Ben
>>
>> /snip/
>>
>> Can I suggest that we bottom post, to preserve the continity of the thread?
>>
>> One thing I'm not seeing here is the processor. Is it a G4 or a G5,
>> what speed, iMac, Powerbook, Powermac or what?
>>
>> Lee
>
> This is using a Power Mac G4 with dual 867 Mhz PowerPC CPUs& 2 gbytes
> of mem ( http://support.apple.com/kb/SP63 ) with the most recent
> version of OS X.
>
> Ben
could be any number of things. for starters
* newsgroup subscriptions
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=541001
* checking lots of folders for new messages
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526568
--
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing
http://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/165/
bslade
> On 2/18/2010 2:26 PM, bslade wrote:
>
> > On Jan 4, 9:48 am, Leonidas Jones<LeonidasJo...@netscape.net> wrote:
> >> bslade wrote:
> >>> I tried safe-mode and dropping/recreating the .msf files. No
> >>> significant difference. Also, I already had global indexing turned
> >>> off.
>
> >>> I'm wondering if the new TBird 3.0 is just slower because of core
> >>> changes (new Gecko 1.9.1 rendering engine, new search engine, new
> >>> client local database driver). See
> >>>http://www.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/about/press/archive/2009-12-08-01
>
> not really
>
>
>
> >>> I wonder if there's anyway to profile where TBird is spending it's
> >>> time? Probably requires compiling the source code and getting some
> >>> sort of Javascript debugger (since a lot of TBird is implemented in
> >>> Javascript, from what I understand)
>
> >>> Ben
>
> >> /snip/
>
> >> Can I suggest that we bottom post, to preserve the continity of the thread?
>
> >> One thing I'm not seeing here is the processor. Is it a G4 or a G5,
> >> what speed, iMac, Powerbook, Powermac or what?
>
> >> Lee
>
> > This is using a Power Mac G4 with dual 867 Mhz PowerPC CPUs& 2 gbytes
> > version of OS X.
>
> > Ben
>
> could be any number of things. for starters
> * checking lots of folders for new messageshttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=526568
>
> --http://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testinghttp://www.spreadthunderbird.com/aff/165/
My Thunderbird is using around 250 mbytes of virtual memory, which
doesn't sound excessive according to the docs.
And I'm not using newsgroups with Thunderbird. I have no extensions
installed and all my plug-ins are disabled. (Are "Add-ons" the same
as "Extensions"? I only see a way to add "Add-ons", not list them.
But there is a "List Extensions" window)
Thanks for the ideas though.
Ben
LuKreme
> My Thunderbird is using around 250 mbytes of virtual memory, which
> doesn't sound excessive according to the docs.
>
> And I'm not using newsgroups with Thunderbird. I have no extensions
> installed and all my plug-ins are disabled. (Are "Add-ons" the same
> as "Extensions"? I only see a way to add "Add-ons", not list them.
> But there is a "List Extensions" window)
I am running TB3 (well, not right this second, but often) on a G4 iBook.
I do have the RAM maxed out on it (1.25GB), but TB runs just fine on
it. I notice nothing that is particularly slow or unresponsive.
--
Han Solo: Damn fool, I knew you were going to say that.
Ben : Who's the more foolish, the fool, or the fool who
follows him?
Wayne Mery
are you talking rsize? rsize is what we care about. and 250 would be in
the high side.
http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2007/10/16/os-x-and-virtual-bloat/
> And I'm not using newsgroups with Thunderbird. I have no extensions
> installed and all my plug-ins are disabled. (Are "Add-ons" the same
> as "Extensions"? I only see a way to add "Add-ons", not list them.
> But there is a "List Extensions" window)
_If_ you've gone through
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing:Memory_Usage_Problems and
all looks good, including memory usage, then perhaps the next thing is
to do a shark profile
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Profiling_JavaScript_with_Shark
LuKreme
> are you talking rsize? rsize is what we care about. and 250 would be in
> the high side.
> http://blog.mozilla.com/dolske/2007/10/16/os-x-and-virtual-bloat/
my Thunderbird on a G4 is using 160MB of memory and about 900MB of
virtual memory. Of course, I don't care what the virtual number is as
long as it's under 4GB (it's a G4, if can't understand anything over 4GB)
--
At 20:43 the dome of St. Elvis Cathedral shattered... and the Devil
walked the earth again. He'd never really left.