Dbmail is the name of a group of programs that enable the possiblilty of storing and retrieving mail messages from a database using POP3 or IMAP4rev1 ()

headers Eric Hiller | 11 Jul 2011 23:38

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail <at> dbmail.org
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Eric

For reference we are running dbmail 2.2.x and one account I just tested with
5,000 messages in the inbox loaded the Squirrel Mail interface (i.e. showing
the inbox listing) in about 4 seconds.

This was of course over the LAN and so there is no chance of any networking
issues cropping up.

I should say though that we find Squirrel mail with dbmail 2.2.x incredibly
slow if there are a lot of mail folders and it can take a minute or more for
some users to access their accounts.  To access the same account with, say,
roundcubemail takes a fraction of the time.

Daniel

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:38:44 -0500
From: Eric Hiller <mrraptor98 <at> hotmail.com>
Subject: [Dbmail] Average Inbox Load Times
To: <dbmail <at> dbmail.org>
Message-ID: <BLU166-w4586C1250481DF58AD538DB450 <at> phx.gbl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

We are using squirrelmail currently for the front end with dbmail 2.2 and
currently the mail interface seems slow. I was wondering what you all
typically saw for load times with ~900 messages in the Inbox? I am just
trying to figure if our page load times can be increased at this point
before I start doing serious investigation.

Thanks!
-Eric

are you using imapproxy? it'll speed up squirrelmail a fair bit.

On 07/12/2011 09:44 PM, Daniel Schütze wrote:
> Eric
>
> For reference we are running dbmail 2.2.x and one account I just tested with
> 5,000 messages in the inbox loaded the Squirrel Mail interface (i.e. showing
> the inbox listing) in about 4 seconds.
>
> This was of course over the LAN and so there is no chance of any networking
> issues cropping up.
>
> I should say though that we find Squirrel mail with dbmail 2.2.x incredibly
> slow if there are a lot of mail folders and it can take a minute or more for
> some users to access their accounts.  To access the same account with, say,
> roundcubemail takes a fraction of the time.
>
> Daniel
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:38:44 -0500
> From: Eric Hiller<mrraptor98 <at> hotmail.com>
> Subject: [Dbmail] Average Inbox Load Times
> To:<dbmail <at> dbmail.org>
> Message-ID:<BLU166-w4586C1250481DF58AD538DB450 <at> phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> We are using squirrelmail currently for the front end with dbmail 2.2 and
> currently the mail interface seems slow. I was wondering what you all
> typically saw for load times with ~900 messages in the Inbox? I am just
> trying to figure if our page load times can be increased at this point
> before I start doing serious investigation.
>
> Thanks!
> -Eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> DBmail mailing list
> DBmail <at> dbmail.org
> http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

Also iirc the "Size" column in the display requires it to actually
download every message to calculate the size, so should run faster
without that (though maybe that's only older dbmail versions ?)

On Tue, 2011-07-12 at 22:04 +1000, Jake Anderson wrote:
> are you using imapproxy? it'll speed up squirrelmail a fair bit.
> 
> On 07/12/2011 09:44 PM, Daniel Schütze wrote:
> > Eric
> >
> > For reference we are running dbmail 2.2.x and one account I just tested with
> > 5,000 messages in the inbox loaded the Squirrel Mail interface (i.e. showing
> > the inbox listing) in about 4 seconds.
> >
> > This was of course over the LAN and so there is no chance of any networking
> > issues cropping up.
> >
> > I should say though that we find Squirrel mail with dbmail 2.2.x incredibly
> > slow if there are a lot of mail folders and it can take a minute or more for
> > some users to access their accounts.  To access the same account with, say,
> > roundcubemail takes a fraction of the time.
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 16:38:44 -0500
> > From: Eric Hiller<mrraptor98 <at> hotmail.com>
> > Subject: [Dbmail] Average Inbox Load Times
> > To:<dbmail <at> dbmail.org>
> > Message-ID:<BLU166-w4586C1250481DF58AD538DB450 <at> phx.gbl>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> >
> >
> > We are using squirrelmail currently for the front end with dbmail 2.2 and
> > currently the mail interface seems slow. I was wondering what you all
> > typically saw for load times with ~900 messages in the Inbox? I am just
> > trying to figure if our page load times can be increased at this point
> > before I start doing serious investigation.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Eric
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > DBmail mailing list
> > DBmail <at> dbmail.org
> > http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

> 
> _______________________________________________
> DBmail mailing list
> DBmail <at> dbmail.org
> http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

-- 
Jesse Norell
Kentec Communications, Inc.
jesse <at> kci.net
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail <at> dbmail.org
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail <at> dbmail.org
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

dms wrote:
> 
> Eric
> 
> For reference we are running dbmail 2.2.x and one account I just tested
> with
> 5,000 messages in the inbox loaded the Squirrel Mail interface (i.e.
> showing
> the inbox listing) in about 4 seconds.
> 
> This was of course over the LAN and so there is no chance of any
> networking
> issues cropping up.
> 
> I should say though that we find Squirrel mail with dbmail 2.2.x
> incredibly
> slow if there are a lot of mail folders and it can take a minute or more
> for
> some users to access their accounts.  To access the same account with,
> say,
> roundcubemail takes a fraction of the time.
> 
SquirrelMail left folder listing is not optimized for more than 20 folders.
It can be fixed. Speed of left folder listing also depends on user options.
Claiming that roundcube is faster to load is a bit misleading, if you set
SquirrelMail to check every folder and Roundcube is testing only INBOX.
--

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Average-Inbox-Load-Times-%28Eric-Hiller%29-tp32045195p32047935.html
Sent from the dbmail users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

variable wrote:
> 
> 
> We are using squirrelmail currently for the front end with dbmail 2.2 and
> currently the mail interface seems slow. I was wondering what you all
> typically saw for load times with ~900 messages in the Inbox? I am just
> trying to figure if our page load times can be increased at this point
> before I start doing serious investigation.
> 
SquirrelMail does not enable server side sorting by default. Admin must
enable it, if server supports it. It is unclear if you are familiar with
SquirrelMail optimization guidelines.

Not sorted mailbox display, 15 messages per page, 1000 messages in mailbox
Courier - 310,47 ms
Cyrus - 259,52 ms
UW mbox - 1167,62 ms
UW mbx - 	583,35 ms
Dovecot mbox - 187,30 ms
Dovecot maildir - 230,12 ms
hMailServer - 811,71 ms
dbmail - not tested. 

Test is done with custom plugin.
--

-- 
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Average-Inbox-Load-Times-tp32041648p32047982.html
Sent from the dbmail users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Tomas

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, both SquirrelMail and Roundcube list
all the folders on the left side when the user logs in.  There's not much in
it as to the loading time between them when selecting one of these folders,
but SquirrelMail does take a long time to get to the initial screen if there
are a lot of folders.

If there is an obvious user or config option I'm missing which boosts
SquirrelMail performance with a lot of folders I'd love to hear about it!
Afterall the users don't tend to care about the contents of these subfolders
when they're out and about.

Daniel

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Tomas Kuliavas <tokul <at> users.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)
To: dbmail <at> dbmail.org
Message-ID: <32047935.post <at> talk.nabble.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

SquirrelMail left folder listing is not optimized for more than 20 folders.
It can be fixed. Speed of left folder listing also depends on user options.
Claiming that roundcube is faster to load is a bit misleading, if you set
SquirrelMail to check every folder and Roundcube is testing only INBOX.
--

-- 
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/Re%3A-Average-Inbox-Load-Times-%28Eric-Hiller%29-tp320
45195p32047935.html
Sent from the dbmail users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
***

On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Schütze wrote:
> Tomas
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what you mean, both SquirrelMail and Roundcube list
> all the folders on the left side when the user logs in.  There's not much in
> it as to the loading time between them when selecting one of these folders,
> but SquirrelMail does take a long time to get to the initial screen if there
> are a lot of folders.
> 
> If there is an obvious user or config option I'm missing which boosts
> SquirrelMail performance with a lot of folders I'd love to hear about it!
> Afterall the users don't tend to care about the contents of these subfolders
> when they're out and about.

  In some quick testing, Options->Folder Preferences->

Enable Unread Message Notification:  No Notification
Enable Cumulative Unread Message Notification:  (uncheck)

seem to speed up the left folder list for me, at the cost of not knowing
how many new messages are in each folder.  That didn't speed up the
right pane of the actual folder contents any.  Nor does removing the
Size column, for that matter.

> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:01:00 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Tomas Kuliavas <tokul <at> users.sourceforge.net>
> Subject: Re: [Dbmail] Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)
> To: dbmail <at> dbmail.org
> Message-ID: <32047935.post <at> talk.nabble.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> SquirrelMail left folder listing is not optimized for more than 20 folders.
> It can be fixed. Speed of left folder listing also depends on user options.
> Claiming that roundcube is faster to load is a bit misleading, if you set
> SquirrelMail to check every folder and Roundcube is testing only INBOX.

-- 
Jesse Norell
Kentec Communications, Inc.
jesse <at> kci.net
_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail <at> dbmail.org
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

2011.07.13 19:20 Jesse Norell rašė:
> On Wed, 2011-07-13 at 11:34 +0100, Daniel Schütze wrote:
>> Tomas
>>
>> I'm not entirely sure what you mean, both SquirrelMail and Roundcube
>> list
>> all the folders on the left side when the user logs in.  There's not
>> much in
>> it as to the loading time between them when selecting one of these
>> folders,
>> but SquirrelMail does take a long time to get to the initial screen if
>> there
>> are a lot of folders.
>>
>> If there is an obvious user or config option I'm missing which boosts
>> SquirrelMail performance with a lot of folders I'd love to hear about
>> it!
>> Afterall the users don't tend to care about the contents of these
>> subfolders
>> when they're out and about.
>
>   In some quick testing, Options->Folder Preferences->
>
> Enable Unread Message Notification:  No Notification
> Enable Cumulative Unread Message Notification:  (uncheck)
>
> seem to speed up the left folder list for me, at the cost of not knowing
> how many new messages are in each folder.  That didn't speed up the
> right pane of the actual folder contents any.  Nor does removing the
> Size column, for that matter.

If you say slow for 1K mailbox right side listing display, I would say
that your load time should be over 4-5s, you have sorted mailbox and you
haven't turned on server side sorting in SquirrelMail.

Numbers that I've posted show how long it takes from initial plugin
activation to bottom of mailbox listing display. People should not say
slow, if it is under 3 seconds.

Mailbox sorted by date, 15 messages per page, 1k mailbox
-----
SORT is off - 2946,79 ms
Courier - 413,05 ms
Cyrus - 309,30 ms
UW mbox - 366,52 ms
UW mbx - 802,57 ms
Dovecot mbox - 190,18 ms
Dovecot maildir - 176,13 ms
hMailServer4 - 27926,38 ms
-----

dbmail can't be that bad, if SquirrelMail is configured correctly. 1K
mailbox is not big. hMailServer v4 numbers are big as server had to read
every message in mailbox in order to get Date: header value.

Check how performance changes if mailbox is not sorted
http://your-server/path-to-squirrelmail/src/right_main.php?newsort=6&startMessage=1&mailbox=INBOX

Check if server side sorting is enabled in SquirrelMail.

Check if your PHP setup has gettext extension.

Check if you use apc or other opcache. Zend Optimizer does not count, if
you use only this Zend product.

Check SquirrelMail optimization guidelines and talk with SquirrelMail
people before thinking that there is something wrong with dbmail.

-- 
Tomas

_______________________________________________
DBmail mailing list
DBmail <at> dbmail.org
http://mailman.fastxs.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dbmail

36	June 2013
36	May 2013
40	April 2013
37	March 2013
31	February 2013
29	January 2013
23	December 2012
20	November 2012
38	October 2012
19	September 2012
76	August 2012
21	July 2012
42	June 2012
47	May 2012
95	April 2012
59	March 2012
191	February 2012
56	January 2012
9	December 2011
8	November 2011
26	October 2011
49	September 2011
59	August 2011
22	July 2011
28	June 2011
67	May 2011
23	April 2011
35	March 2011
32	February 2011
53	January 2011
33	December 2010
30	November 2010
53	October 2010
43	September 2010
60	August 2010
43	July 2010
29	June 2010
28	May 2010
25	April 2010
36	March 2010
43	February 2010
44	January 2010
83	December 2009
38	November 2009
51	October 2009
99	September 2009
77	August 2009
54	July 2009
73	June 2009
77	May 2009
64	April 2009
81	March 2009
145	February 2009
225	January 2009
101	December 2008
67	November 2008
192	October 2008
61	September 2008
145	August 2008
78	July 2008
101	June 2008
144	May 2008
143	April 2008
131	March 2008
180	February 2008
149	January 2008
205	December 2007
147	November 2007
205	October 2007
203	September 2007
212	August 2007
423	July 2007
412	June 2007
382	May 2007
160	April 2007
339	March 2007
145	February 2007
267	January 2007
429	December 2006
504	November 2006
223	October 2006
173	September 2006
237	August 2006
296	July 2006
247	June 2006
310	May 2006
242	April 2006
251	March 2006
119	February 2006
154	January 2006
209	December 2005
171	November 2005
77	October 2005
154	September 2005
185	August 2005
161	July 2005
185	June 2005
103	May 2005
223	April 2005
218	March 2005
100	February 2005
129	January 2005
168	December 2004
150	November 2004
173	October 2004
172	September 2004
102	August 2004
138	July 2004
124	June 2004
229	May 2004
162	April 2004
231	March 2004
231	February 2004
103	January 2004
100	December 2003

Average Inbox Load Times

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller) (Tomas Kuliavas)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller) (Tomas Kuliavas)

Re: Average Inbox Load Times (Eric Hiller) (Tomas Kuliavas)

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun

				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31