Thunderbird Extremely Slow and Pegging CPU

[H]

I have been running TB under Centos 6.7 on a laptop for about two years
and during this time have been hoping that the developers eventually
would fix the extreme slowness of the application but, alas, no luck.
The CPU is pegged at 100% for very long times during which time the
interface is completely blocked, a no-no in any application. BTW, the
computer has a SSD.

I am currently on TB 38.7.0 and have only a few add-ons: Lightning
4.0.7. CategoryManager 1.60, Inverse SoGo Connector 31.0.1 and Manually
Sort Folders 1.1.

What on Earth could be causing this application to run like a pig in mud
with no improvement for many releases? It is even slower running on a
laptop that has Vista installed but that is to be expected.

Even if the application has so much work to do, why would the developers
let this block the interface thread?? It's like being back running Win
3.1 on an early computer...

[WaltS48]

When was the last time you compacted folders?

<http://kb.mozillazine.org/Performance_%28Thunderbird%29>

[Wayne]

It seems fairly odd that you expect anyone to fix something that you
have not reported to the bug system (in many releases). Or presume a
solution without knowing the cause.

A starting point is
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing:Memory_Usage_Problems

[Tanstaafl]

Your experience is the exception, not the rule. Thunderbird runs great
for me, and has for a very long time, over many updates, new
computers/installs, etc.

First thing I'd suspect is something in your profile, second would be
something else on your computer - Antivirus is the most likely culprit
there. Buggy/bad video drivers (hardware acceleration bugs anyone?), etc...

Regardless, the fact is Thunderbird does NOT behave the way you are
describing under normal circumstances. That doesn't negate the fact that
you are having trouble, but your characterization of this as a
'Thunderbird' problem is incorrect.

[H]

On 05/23/2016 01:27 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 05/23/2016 07:17 AM, H wrote:

> When was the last time you compacted folders?
>
> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Performance_%28Thunderbird%29>
>
>

> _______________________________________________
> support-thunderbird mailing list
> support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
> To unsubscribe, send an email to
> support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe
Quite some time ago but why would slow disk access be allowed to block
the interface thread?

[H]

On 05/23/2016 01:38 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Your experience is the exception, not the rule. Thunderbird runs great
> for me, and has for a very long time, over many updates, new
> computers/installs, etc.
>
> First thing I'd suspect is something in your profile, second would be
> something else on your computer - Antivirus is the most likely culprit
> there. Buggy/bad video drivers (hardware acceleration bugs anyone?), etc...
>
> Regardless, the fact is Thunderbird does NOT behave the way you are
> describing under normal circumstances. That doesn't negate the fact that
> you are having trouble, but your characterization of this as a
> 'Thunderbird' problem is incorrect.
>

> On 5/23/2016 7:17 AM, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:
>> I have been running TB under Centos 6.7 on a laptop for about two years
>> and during this time have been hoping that the developers eventually
>> would fix the extreme slowness of the application but, alas, no luck.
>> The CPU is pegged at 100% for very long times during which time the
>> interface is completely blocked, a no-no in any application. BTW, the
>> computer has a SSD.
>>
>> I am currently on TB 38.7.0 and have only a few add-ons: Lightning
>> 4.0.7. CategoryManager 1.60, Inverse SoGo Connector 31.0.1 and Manually
>> Sort Folders 1.1.
>>
>> What on Earth could be causing this application to run like a pig in mud
>> with no improvement for many releases? It is even slower running on a
>> laptop that has Vista installed but that is to be expected.
>>
>> Even if the application has so much work to do, why would the developers
>> let this block the interface thread?? It's like being back running Win
>> 3.1 on an early computer...

> _______________________________________________
> support-thunderbird mailing list
> support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
> To unsubscribe, send an email to support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

But why would I have the same problem on two different computers running
two different operating systems, on two different networks? I do not run
any anti-virus software on the Linux computer and there is nothing
cutting-edge about the computer. Profiles, of course, were created
completely independently and were never shared.

Could Lightning be the culprit?

[Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]]

How does it behave in good ol' Safe Mode?

- Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]

[Wayne]

On 5/23/2016 3:01 PM, H wrote:
> On 05/23/2016 01:27 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 05/23/2016 07:17 AM, H wrote:
>>> I have been running TB under Centos 6.7 on a laptop for about two
>>> years and during this time have been hoping that the developers
>>> eventually would fix the extreme slowness of the application but,
>>> alas, no luck. The CPU is pegged at 100% for very long times during
>>> which time the interface is completely blocked, a no-no in any
>>> application. BTW, the computer has a SSD.
>>>
>>> I am currently on TB 38.7.0 and have only a few add-ons: Lightning
>>> 4.0.7. CategoryManager 1.60, Inverse SoGo Connector 31.0.1 and
>>> Manually Sort Folders 1.1.
>>>
>>> What on Earth could be causing this application to run like a pig in
>>> mud with no improvement for many releases? It is even slower running
>>> on a laptop that has Vista installed but that is to be expected.
>>>
>>> Even if the application has so much work to do, why would the
>>> developers let this block the interface thread?? It's like being back
>>> running Win 3.1 on an early computer...
>>
>>
>> When was the last time you compacted folders?
>>
>> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Performance_%28Thunderbird%29>
>>

> Quite some time ago but why would slow disk access be allowed to block
> the interface thread?

To be clear, you are presenting conflicting information - stating high
CPU but yet speculating about slow disk - speculating isn't useful.

It would help if you provide sufficient information for someone
technical to provide you with a recommendation. The information needed
can be gained by you going through
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing:Memory_Usage_Problems (safe
mode is just one step of many)

[Wayne]

> But why would I have the same problem on two different computers running
> two different operating systems, on two different networks? I do not run
> any anti-virus software on the Linux computer and there is nothing
> cutting-edge about the computer. Profiles, of course, were created
> completely independently and were never shared.
>
> Could Lightning be the culprit?

Not enough information is present to say that it is, or why - but it
could be. The linux environment is simpler than Windows. Therefore, it
would be faster to step through
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing:Memory_Usage_Problems using
that system.

[Tanstaafl]

On 5/23/2016 3:04 PM, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:
> But why would I have the same problem on two different computers running
> two different operating systems, on two different networks? I do not run
> any anti-virus software on the Linux computer and there is nothing
> cutting-edge about the computer. Profiles, of course, were created
> completely independently and were never shared.
>
> Could Lightning be the culprit?

Not likely, since I've been using it forever too.

Maybe one of your other Addons...

[Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 13:17:39 +0200

H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:

> I have been running TB under Centos 6.7 on a laptop for about two
> years and during this time have been hoping that the developers
> eventually would fix the extreme slowness of the application but,
> alas, no luck. The CPU is pegged at 100% for very long times during
> which time the interface is completely blocked, a no-no in any
> application. BTW, the computer has a SSD.

What size is your ~/.thunderbird folder?
I experience this with my current context:
- ~30GB of messages stored locally (IMAP stored offline)
- huge Caldav calendar (I dont know how much in size nor in events
number)

[Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY]

On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:45:26 -0400
Wayne <vsee...@lehigh.edu> wrote:

> > Even if the application has so much work to do, why would the
> > developers let this block the interface thread?? It's like being
> > back running Win 3.1 on an early computer...
>

> It seems fairly odd that you expect anyone to fix something that you
> have not reported to the bug system (in many releases). Or presume a
> solution without knowing the cause.

Let's just think about one use case:
- Big IMAP folder (say INBOX)
- Thread view enabled for this folder

In this case TB has to read the whole messages list and then build the
threaded view.

It's is obviusly slow, and although it is programmatically possible to
thread this process, It has many chances to remain slow as thread
lengths are not predictible.

So, my conclusion is... it has chances to remain slow.

[NFN Smith]

For the OP...

If you're having the same issues between Windows and Linux, then that's
indication that the problems aren't platform-specific.

Lightning is doubtful, but it's not impossible, either.

I know that with Firefox, sometimes one of the things that causes this
kind of issue is Flash player, and that's a plug-in. Flash is an
unlikely culprit for Thunderbird, but also not impossible.

When you're having performance issues with a Mozilla application
(whether Thunderbird, Firefox or Seamonkey), the first step is nearly
always Safe Mode. My experience is that the large majority of issues of
this type are related to a profile, and not the application itself. For
what it's worth, if you follow any of related support newsgroups, it's
too common to see complaints, following a version release, "I just
upgraded to version x, and now it doesn't work". And there's a few that
refuse to upgrade past a certain version, because they had problems with
a particular upgrade. In the face of the majority of users who do run
the most current releases, and not having problems, that's fairly strong
evidence of problems with the individual user's installation, and in
turn, that points to profile issues.

Safe Mode is the easiest first step to check. I've also found that
sometimes, trying with a completely new profile will fix things that
Safe Mode won't. For a browser, it's fairly simple to launch a new
profile (even temporarily). For a Mail client, it's going to take more
work, especially if you use POP. However, if your mail server(s)
support(s) IMAP, then you might want to try configuring IMAP connections
in a new profile, to see how they behave. For this, I'm not suggesting
that IMAP is better (or worse) than POP -- that's a different issue. But
what I am getting at is that I think you may get better performance out
of a new profile, even if Safe Mode doesn't produce satisfactory results.

In the meantime, for both computers:

1) What extensions are you running?
2) What plugins are active?

I concur that extensions may be an issue, especially if you're seeing
issues in more than one profile.

Smith

[H]

On 05/23/2016 09:25 PM, Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP] wrote:
> On Mon, 23 May 2016 21:04:18 +0200, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:
>

> How does it behave in good ol' Safe Mode?
>
> - Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]

> _______________________________________________
> support-thunderbird mailing list
> support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
> To unsubscribe, send an email to support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

It runs fine with the add-ons disabled, re-enabling Lightning, however,
slows everything to a crawl. It would seem that this work is done, or
blocked, by the main UI thread which should be a no-no. The old adage is
that anything that could take more than 1/10 second should be done in a
separate thread.

[H]

On 05/23/2016 09:53 PM, Wayne wrote:
> On 5/23/2016 3:01 PM, H wrote:

>> On 05/23/2016 01:27 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
>>> On 05/23/2016 07:17 AM, H wrote:
>>>> I have been running TB under Centos 6.7 on a laptop for about two
>>>> years and during this time have been hoping that the developers
>>>> eventually would fix the extreme slowness of the application but,
>>>> alas, no luck. The CPU is pegged at 100% for very long times during
>>>> which time the interface is completely blocked, a no-no in any
>>>> application. BTW, the computer has a SSD.
>>>>
>>>> I am currently on TB 38.7.0 and have only a few add-ons: Lightning
>>>> 4.0.7. CategoryManager 1.60, Inverse SoGo Connector 31.0.1 and
>>>> Manually Sort Folders 1.1.
>>>>
>>>> What on Earth could be causing this application to run like a pig in
>>>> mud with no improvement for many releases? It is even slower running
>>>> on a laptop that has Vista installed but that is to be expected.
>>>>
>>>> Even if the application has so much work to do, why would the
>>>> developers let this block the interface thread?? It's like being back
>>>> running Win 3.1 on an early computer...
>>>
>>>
>>> When was the last time you compacted folders?
>>>
>>> <http://kb.mozillazine.org/Performance_%28Thunderbird%29>
>>>

>> Quite some time ago but why would slow disk access be allowed to block
>> the interface thread?
>

> To be clear, you are presenting conflicting information - stating high
> CPU but yet speculating about slow disk - speculating isn't useful.
>
> It would help if you provide sufficient information for someone
> technical to provide you with a recommendation. The information needed

> can be gained by you going through
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Testing:Memory_Usage_Problems

> (safe mode is just one step of many)

> _______________________________________________
> support-thunderbird mailing list
> support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
> https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
> To unsubscribe, send an email to
> support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

Memory utilization is not high on this 8 Gb machine - I have had System
Monitor running in a parallel which tells me that one of the two CPUs is
pegged at 100%.

[Tanstaafl]

On 5/26/2016 10:49 AM, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:
> It runs fine with the add-ons disabled, re-enabling Lightning, however,
> slows everything to a crawl. It would seem that this work is done, or
> blocked, by the main UI thread which should be a no-no. The old adage is
> that anything that could take more than 1/10 second should be done in a
> separate thread.

Ok, so, details...

Version of Lightning? Any other Calendar related Addons?

How many calendars do you have? Local or hosted? If hosted, where (ie,
Google calendars?)

[H]

support-thunderbird mailing list
support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
To unsubscribe, send an email to support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

As I wrote in my first e-mail, Lightning 4.0.8 and also Inverse SoGo Connector 31.0.1.

Ca 25 calendars/tasklists hosted on my own remote server, none local. Regardless of any slowness in calendar access, this should not be allowed to block the main thread, the UI thread.

[H]

On May 24, 2016 6:38:41 AM EDT, Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY <mihamina-ra...@rktmb.org> wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2016 13:17:39 +0200

H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:

 I have been running TB under Centos 6.7 on a laptop for about two
 years and during this time have been hoping that the developers
 eventually would fix the extreme slowness of the application but,
 alas, no luck. The CPU is pegged at 100% for very long times during
 which time the interface is completely blocked, a no-no in any
 application. BTW, the computer has a SSD.

What size is your ~/.thunderbird folder?
I experience this with my current context:
- ~30GB of messages stored locally (IMAP stored offline)
- huge Caldav calendar (I dont know how much in size nor in events
  number)

support-thunderbird mailing list
support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
To unsubscribe, send an email to support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

See my other e-mails re Lightning.

[H]

On May 24, 2016 6:44:26 AM EDT, Mihamina RAKOTOMANDIMBY <mihamina-ra...@rktmb.org> wrote:

On Mon, 23 May 2016 08:45:26 -0400
Wayne <vsee...@lehigh.edu> wrote:

 Even if the application has so much work to do, why would the
 developers let this block the interface thread?? It's like being
 back running Win 3.1 on an early computer...  
 

 It seems fairly odd that you expect anyone to fix something that you 
 have not reported to the bug system (in many releases). Or presume a 
 solution without knowing the cause.

Let's just think about one use case:
- Big IMAP folder (say INBOX)
- Thread view enabled for this folder

In this case TB has to read the whole messages list and then build the
threaded view.

It's is obviusly slow, and although it is programmatically possible to
thread this process, It has many chances to remain slow as thread
lengths are not predictible.

So, my conclusion is... it has chances to remain slow.

support-thunderbird mailing list
support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
To unsubscribe, send an email to support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

Again, I don't think the problem is with e-mail display etc. Even so, it would be trivial to thread that part.

[Tanstaafl]

On 5/26/2016 12:30 PM, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:
> As I wrote in my first e-mail, Lightning 4.0.8 and also Inverse SoGo
> Connector 31.0.1.

Sorry, missed it...

So, all of your calendars are on SOGo (we used it up until just recently
ourselves).

> Ca 25 calendars/tasklists hosted on my own remote server, none local.

What does 'Ca 25' mean?

Assuming it just means you have 25 calendars, you do realize that is a
BOATLOAD of calendars...?

Do any (a lot/most/all) of them have a lot of items on them?

If so, no wonder...

> Regardless of any slowness in calendar access, this should not be
> allowed to block the main thread, the UI thread.

Agreed, and I think there is already a bug open for that, but couldn't
find it in just the few minutes I looked...

[H]

support-thunderbird mailing list
support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
To unsubscribe, send an email to support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe

The version of Lightning was upgrade from 4.0.7 to 4.0.8 during this discussion...

Yes, all calendars are CalDav using the SoGo connector. It does seem - which is to be expected - that enabling the SoGo connector slows things down further.

Ca 25 means circa 25 calendars, the largest one may have a couple of thousand events/tasks, the smallest one has one... I don't think that's a lot. Eventually I expect to gave maybe 10,000 events/tasks. Haven't looked to see if the address book suffers from a similar design wart but I expect to add another address book with 10,000 contacts.

If my presumption about work being done in the main thread, or it being blocked, I would consider it a serious design flaw.

[Thee Chicago Wolf [MVP]]

On Thu, 26 May 2016 16:09:03 -0400, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:

>On May 26, 2016 1:50:18 PM EDT, Tanstaafl <tans...@libertytrek.org> wrote:
>>On 5/26/2016 12:30 PM, H <age...@meddatainc.com> wrote:
>>> As I wrote in my first e-mail, Lightning 4.0.8 and also Inverse SoGo
>>> Connector 31.0.1.
>>
>>Sorry, missed it...
>>
>>So, all of your calendars are on SOGo (we used it up until just
>>recently
>>ourselves).
>>
>>> Ca 25 calendars/tasklists hosted on my own remote server, none local.
>>
>>What does 'Ca 25' mean?
>>
>>Assuming it just means you have 25 calendars, you do realize that is a
>>BOATLOAD of calendars...?
>>
>>Do any (a lot/most/all) of them have a lot of items on them?
>>
>>If so, no wonder...
>>
>>> Regardless of any slowness in calendar access, this should not be
>>> allowed to block the main thread, the UI thread.
>>
>>Agreed, and I think there is already a bug open for that, but couldn't
>>find it in just the few minutes I looked...
>>
>>

>>_______________________________________________

>>support-thunderbird mailing list
>>support-t...@lists.mozilla.org
>>https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-thunderbird
>>To unsubscribe, send an email to
>>support-thund...@lists.mozilla.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
>The version of Lightning was upgrade from 4.0.7 to 4.0.8 during this discussion...
>
>Yes, all calendars are CalDav using the SoGo connector. It does seem - which is to be expected - that enabling the SoGo connector slows things down further.
>
>Ca 25 means circa 25 calendars, the largest one may have a couple of thousand events/tasks, the smallest one has one... I don't think that's a lot. Eventually I expect to gave maybe 10,000 events/tasks. Haven't looked to see if the address book suffers from a similar design wart but I expect to add another address book with 10,000 contacts.
>
>If my presumption about work being done in the main thread, or it being blocked, I would consider it a serious design flaw.

Is there no way to update to TB 45.1.1
(http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/thunderbird/releases/45.1.1/) on CentOS?
45.1.1 has Lightning 4.7.x which I would surmise has some bug fixes
and better performance on such a heavy calendar.