Re: Woeful Thunderbird Performance
There is an option to disable thunderbird making a copy of all email locally. This is known to have had some issues on some versions of Thunderbird, although it was a while ago. It should have been resolved in Mint 17 - but who knows. Also you may try rebuild the index for the folders. (in folders properties) Are you imaping from gmail? Daniel. On Sat, 03 Jan 2015 16:30:12 +1100 David Zuccaro <david.zuccaro@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
On 03/01/15 15:35, Dan062 wrote:
Which particular functionality of thunderbird is slow?? Everything, click on directories for example. Funny thing is that it seems OK at the moment -- other times it is unusable. I have been monitoring CPU usage in top and there is nothing untoward going on there. Are you poping or imaping? imaping Is this what is slow? maybe. Should I use pop or just completely stop using gmail? I thought IMAP was supposed to be better? Have you updated to latest release? Some release had a few issues, that were fixed later. I'm using Mint 17, I guess I could move to 17.1 but there doesn't seem to be anything mentioned about Thunderbird in "New Features".
-- dan062 <dan062@yahoo.com.au>
Hi, On 3/01/2015 6:14 PM, Dan062 wrote:
There is an option to disable thunderbird making a copy of all email locally. This is known to have had some issues on some versions of Thunderbird, although it was a while ago. It should have been resolved in Mint 17 - but who knows.
I used to download all my IMAP folders to my laptop, but found that it was too much .... now I just download what I need and still Thunderbird slows down when the memory usage creeps up. My view is that the sqllite databases are just too big and cumbersome. Cheers A.
On 3 January 2015 at 20:50, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
My view is that the sqllite databases are just too big and cumbersome.
I'd almost wager money on it NOT being the fault of SQLite. SQLite is surprisingly effective at handling large databases, and I say that as someone who has worked with such a lot. (It has a lot of other drawbacks, such as poor concurrency and very loose standards support, but that often doesn't matter in embedded use-cases, which is where it's most often found)
On 5/01/2015 11:13 AM, Toby Corkindale wrote:
On 3 January 2015 at 20:50, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
My view is that the sqllite databases are just too big and cumbersome.
I'd almost wager money on it NOT being the fault of SQLite. SQLite is surprisingly effective at handling large databases, and I say that as someone who has worked with such a lot. (It has a lot of other drawbacks, such as poor concurrency and very loose standards support, but that often doesn't matter in embedded use-cases, which is where it's most often found)
What about a 2.6 GB global message store? I found I had real performance issues until I stopped downloading every message to my client machine. The server has all the messages and there are a great many there. Also, I don't do the archive thing any more, my folders are growing continually -- some old messages are removed by some automatic processes via cron on the server (don't need server logs to be kept forever). Messages go to folders via .forward settings on the server and don't usually get moved via Thunderbird. Cheers A.
participants (3)
-
Andrew McGlashan -
Dan062 -
Toby Corkindale