TB3.1 slow sending

User Help for Mozilla Thunderbird
fperini
Posts: 330
Joined: January 18th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: Omaha, NE

TB3.1 slow sending

Post by fperini »

It takes me a while to come up with questions, because I try to do a comparison study between versions, but, I determined that there is something, basically, wrong with TB3.x.
I, always, keep the previous version when I install a new version, in a different folder, and create a separate profile. A new version starts with no addons.
I gave up, in disgust, v.3.0.x., because of its slowness in deleting or moving e-mails. It must make each message read, before doing anything else. When I found out that 3.1 was available, I tried it, and, initially, liked it, making it my default, over 2.0.0.24. Its deletion or moving behavior is similar to 3.0.x, but much faster. However, It is a veritable slowpoke sending mail. I receive 10 times more mail than I send, so the behavior was not noticed, immediately, and I, often, use the previous version.
But, one day, I tried to send five e-mails with 3.1, and three times out, after two minutes. The other two averaged over 90 sec. I obtained Postbox Express, which is based on TB, into which I imported the settings of the 3.1 profile. As a test, I sent five e-mails, three with no attachment, and two with attachments smaller than 1 MB. TB2.0.0.24 was the fastest. I could not measure the time. Postbox Express took 3-4 sec., while 3.1 sent all messages, barely clearing two minutes with one.
The settings are identical in all three profiles. Although other people tried to tell me that it was a server problem, my results disprove this. For now, TB3.1 is sitting on my computer, but as far a sending mail, I don't use it. I am concerned that v.2.x will end, soon, and Postbox Express is too funky, but there is something wrong with 3.1.
WinXP SP3, 512 MB, FF3.6.17 and Firefox3.6.17 portable, FF 4.01, Thunderbird 3.1.10 , SM2.0.13, Google Chrome, Avast AV.
User avatar
DanRaisch
Moderator
Posts: 127166
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by DanRaisch »

Have you compacted the folders in the 3.x profile? Are those accounts POP or IMAP, and what is the target for saving the outgoing messages?
Neville
Posts: 715
Joined: April 7th, 2008, 1:14 am

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by Neville »

I have just sent a 1.1 MB attachment to myself with TB 3.1.1. The upload to mail.gandi.net via SSL/TLS, port 995 with password took about 30 seconds on my 733 MHz G4. This was in the UK where we do not have DSL - our asymmetric ADSL only has a 400 M bit / second upload speed - my download speed is typically 15 times faster.

I recall doing speed tests with different ports / passwords some while ago and concluded that several ISPs had faster interfaces for those with passwords.
fperini
Posts: 330
Joined: January 18th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: Omaha, NE

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by fperini »

I compact my folders before closing TB, all versions. The accounts in question were POP. The out going messages are saved in the default Sent folder. The ISP does not use authentication, so I use port 25 to send. My machine is old, and have 512 MB memory, and have a high speed cable connection.
This morning, I replied to an e-mail sent with Postbox Express in 3 sec., and took my time to look at the progress of sending. 3.1.1. took over a minute to find the SMTP, nearly to 2 Min. to contact it, and it failed to deliver the message, timing out after 2 minutes. I did not attempt to send the message, again. Over five minutes to send a simple message, may be 20 lines long is ridiculous. I will have to make corrections to my signature, but the problem remains.
v.3.x is unbelievably slow when compared to 2.x (I am not sure what Postbox Express is based on, but it has Tabs, and it is based on Thunderbird).
WinXP SP3, 512 MB, FF3.6.17 and Firefox3.6.17 portable, FF 4.01, Thunderbird 3.1.10 , SM2.0.13, Google Chrome, Avast AV.
User avatar
DanRaisch
Moderator
Posts: 127166
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by DanRaisch »

It sounds as though the problem is with something in your profile because I see absolutely no difference in sending speed between 2.x and 3.1 on my systems.

OK, time to try the a more aggressive option. First, backup your Profile ( http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_backup )

Create a new sub-folder under Local Folders. Move all of the messages currently in your Sent Folder to that new subfolder.

Confirm that you have made the recommended backup of your Profile.

Close Thunderbird and navigate to your Profile folder. Delete both the file Sent.msf and the file Sent with no extension.

Restart Thunderbird and you should find a new, empty Sent folder in place. Copy any messages you MUST have in your Sent folder from the sub-folder created above to the new Sent folder. Compact the Sent folder after those messages are copied in.

The "Real Fix" entry in this article -- http://kb.mozillazine.org/Compacting_folders#Real_fix also describes this process.
Neville
Posts: 715
Joined: April 7th, 2008, 1:14 am

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by Neville »

Thunderbird is getting much larger (it would be impolite for me to say bloated) mainly because it contains much code not required for POP. It may be the best free cross-platform IMAP client but it is not difficult to find smaller much faster platform specific POP only clients. Many stay with TB because of its reasonably good customisable appearance. I was surprised to discover that the very fast Mailsmith (Mac only) is now free.

Memory may be one of your problems. My TB 3.1.1 uses about 50 MB of real memory and 750 MB of virtual memory.
User avatar
DanRaisch
Moderator
Posts: 127166
Joined: September 23rd, 2004, 8:57 pm
Location: Somewhere on the right coast

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by DanRaisch »

That may be an issue on the Mac version because I'm not seeing anything approaching 750MB on a Windows box.
Neville
Posts: 715
Joined: April 7th, 2008, 1:14 am

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by Neville »

OS X virtual memory use is of little importance as long as there is plenty of real memory to ensure that it is not continuously swapping in and out of disk - I have 1.5 GB of real memory. However a shortage of real memory could cause it to grind to a halt. I am not a Windows user and don't know if its memory control is as efficient as OS X. Here is a useful page:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Te ... e_Problems
rsx11m
Moderator
Posts: 14404
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by rsx11m »

The virtual memory only reflects the sum of what the process has allocated, which may be program code, shared libraries, data, etc. Some of this is in the physical memory, or in the swap area, some pages may be mapped to read-only file content (executable and libraries), some pages may not be associated with any type of memory at all (yet) and were simply requested by the process. 750MB sounds a bit high though, I don't know what's normal for a Mac system. 50MB resident memory is a size I see on Windows as well, so that's nothing to worry about. Unless a huge chunk of the remaining 700MB are somehow effectively used, it shouldn't be a problem.
Neville
Posts: 715
Joined: April 7th, 2008, 1:14 am

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by Neville »

All 50 of my processes use between 600 MB and 900 MB each of virtual memory. I agree that it is not anything to be concerned about.

However I do wonder if putting the latest TB on Windows with a total of 500 MB of memory could be the cause of the OP's difficulties.
rsx11m
Moderator
Posts: 14404
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by rsx11m »

fperini could check in the task manager (Crtl+Shift+Esc, then Processes tab) how large the Mem Usage value is (about 53MB when starting up for me). Windows has a different definition of Virtual Memory (VM Usage), which is actually about 10MB smaller than the overall memory value (which would be impossible on Linux or likely Mac by their definition).

If you only have 512MB to play with, I'd probably preemptively switch off the Global Search and Indexer in Tools > Options > Advanced > General. This may eat substantial resources.
Neville
Posts: 715
Joined: April 7th, 2008, 1:14 am

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by Neville »

I was under the impression that tabs (I never use them) consume a lot of memory. Am I mistaken?
rsx11m
Moderator
Posts: 14404
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by rsx11m »

Browser tabs definitely do, I don't know about the relevance for mail tabs.
They will most certainly require some additional resources.
fperini
Posts: 330
Joined: January 18th, 2004, 11:48 am
Location: Omaha, NE

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by fperini »

DanRaisch wrote:It sounds as though the problem isCreate a new sub-folder under Local Folders. Move all of the messages currently in your Sent Folder to that new subfolder.


I am not going any further. You may have missed the fact that I imported all settings from the 3.1.1 profile when I, first, set up, Postbox Express. Postbox Express is based on Thunderbird. Of course there may be some funky file used by TB3.1.1 which is not affecting Postbox Express.
I don't even want to consider creating a new profile for 3.1.1. I think I have been using a lot of controls.
3.1.1 uses only 47MB, although I may try it, before giving up on it. It is worth trying before giving up.
I wasted a lot of time with 3.x. Who knows, may be there is something toxic since the early days of 3.0a or b?
WinXP SP3, 512 MB, FF3.6.17 and Firefox3.6.17 portable, FF 4.01, Thunderbird 3.1.10 , SM2.0.13, Google Chrome, Avast AV.
rsx11m
Moderator
Posts: 14404
Joined: May 3rd, 2007, 7:40 am
Location: US

Re: TB3.1 slow sending

Post by rsx11m »

Ok, so it's not a memory problem. What I've found on slow sending was usually related to anti-virus settings (and yes, those reports go back to 3.0), scanning outgoing e-mail for spam, but I'd assume that this would affect all branches equally. Thus, while you can switch off a spam-filter scanning for testing if AVG has one, it may not be the solution.
Post Reply