Closed
Bug 216535
Opened 22 years ago
Closed 18 years ago
large mailboxes seem to cause pathological memory usage
Categories
(Thunderbird :: Mail Window Front End, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
DUPLICATE
of bug 266679
People
(Reporter: weldon, Assigned: Bienvenu)
Details
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1
Build Identifier: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.1 (20030723) / Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5a) Gecko/20030728 Mozilla Firebird/0.6.1
Inbox in excess of 8,000 messages makes Thunderbird use over 100MB of memory.
Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
Comment 1•22 years ago
|
||
I just tried loading a 12,000 msg 11MB mailbox (via IMAP). Thunderbird's
resident size wnet from 59MB to 70MB, exactly as expected. This on Linux/x86,
20030818.
Can you supply more details? what was the usage before loading the mailbox, and
how big is the mailbox?
Comment 2•22 years ago
|
||
Now, this is interesting. After making the last update, I checked again, and I
see that thunderbird has now rocketed to 126MB, even though I had selected a
different (very small) mailbox (other than the 12,000 msg one) and have done
nothing else.
And as I sit here typing this, the memory usage is going up, now at 130MB, even
though there's no Thunderbird activity at all (or there shouldn't be). Killing
off the window that I had selected the mailboxes in (but leaving one thunderbird
window open) seems to have stopped it growing (maxed at 135MB), but it hasn't
reduced.
Weldon: did you see memory usage continuiing to increase? Also, what mail server
are you using, please?
[changing summary]
OS: Windows XP → All
Hardware: PC → All
Summary: Memory Problem → large mailboxes seem to cause pathological memory usage
Reporter | ||
Comment 3•22 years ago
|
||
After I got your message, I tried using Thunderbird again and it looks to be
hovering around 26 - 32 MB without spiking, I am keeping the Task Mgr open to
see if it spike up again and see what I am doing to trigger it. My mailbox on
the unix server is around 98MB. I have Thunderbird programmed to leave messages
on the server but delete when I delete from Thunderbird.
I am using POP. I am popping from a FreeBSD Unix server running 4.0.5 of Qpopper.
Reporter | ||
Comment 4•22 years ago
|
||
It appears to jump up and stay up after getting a lot of mail at a time. It
may have jumped to 100M+ because it grabbed over 8,000 at one time the 1st day
I was using Thunderbird. Yesterday, it stayed at reasonable levels. This
morning, after it grabbed about 40 messages, it jumped to 42M and stayed there.
Updated•21 years ago
|
QA Contact: asa
Assignee | ||
Comment 5•21 years ago
|
||
Is this a problem when lots of new mail arrives, or when you select a large
folder that already has a number of messages?
Assignee: mscott → bienvenu
Assignee | ||
Comment 6•21 years ago
|
||
do you have message filters that move the messages to other folders, or do they
remain in the inbox? Do you have junk mail controls turned on for this account?
Assignee | ||
Comment 7•21 years ago
|
||
any answers to my questions? One known issue is that if you have filters that
filter mail to other folders, we'll open the db's for those other folders, and
not close them until you click on the folders and click away...if those folders
are large, that could account for this.
(In reply to comment #7)
> any answers to my questions? One known issue is that if you have filters that
> filter mail to other folders, we'll open the db's for those other folders, and
> not close them until you click on the folders and click away...if those folders
> are large, that could account for this.
You may have hit the nail on the head, I filtered one pop box into a massive
imap account (2-3M mails over loadsa folders) into a folder of 300 messages and
TB shoots to over 300Mb memory and ~69% cpu on a dual CPU machine, and locks for
about 30 seconds ..... every 2 mins.
But I've deleted the filters to the large box and it made nbo difference!
100% cpu and 300Mb ram every 30 seconds or so is a joke.
I have about 5 IMAP accounts and 3 pop boxes, some imap folders contain up to
about 200,000 mails. FYI.
(In reply to comment #8)
> (In reply to comment #7)
> > any answers to my questions? One known issue is that if you have filters that
> > filter mail to other folders, we'll open the db's for those other folders, and
> > not close them until you click on the folders and click away...if those folders
> > are large, that could account for this.
I think the priority or severity on this one need changing, this is pretty bad
for long term use.
I have some further info that may or may not help. The same thing happens on
large IMAP folders.
100% cpu is taken up when after a move/copy via a rule on an imap server. The
system grinds to a hault at the point below. (Note this moves the message to a
folder with 200,000 items in it (dont ask).
The folder is not selected for offline use.
The server is a pretty default Cyrus on a pretty bored P4.
Trace with comment...
>311 uid copy 724564 "INBOX.pending6"
<311 OK [COPYUID 1097481831 724564 26] Completed
>312 uid store 724564 +FLAGS (\Deleted \Seen)
<* 14157 FETCH (FLAGS (\Recent \Deleted \Seen) UID 724564)
312 OK Completed
# -=- Sodding great pause and 100% CPU here & thunderbird locks up-=-
>313 IDLE
<+ idling
Comment 10•20 years ago
|
||
I think this may be the same bug I am experiencing. I used to not have a problem
but now when I leave Thunderbird open for a day or two the memory consumption
just keeps growing until I eventually run out of virtual memory and programs
begin to crash on my computer. Please mark this a higher priority. I will try
disabling filtering and junk mail and see if that helps in my case.
Comment 11•20 years ago
|
||
I experience this also, in Thunderbird 1.0 (20050116) from Debian/Unstable. I
have filters set up that take all incoming mail on an IMAP server and move it to
one of several local folders, all selected for offline use. I have found that
it also seems to be triggered all at once, rather than gradually as mail
arrives, in the following situation:
I have unread mail in two local folders, A and B. I read all the new messages
in A, then with the focus in the message body pane I hit space.
After hitting space and before the window pops up asking if I'd like to advance
to folder B, the disk spends fifteen seconds clicking away and all remaining
memory along with half the swap fills up.
The only way to free up this memory seems to be by closing and restarting
Thunderbird; it stays used even after I've read all the messages in folder B and
gone somewhere else.
For my purposes, this is a very severe issue, as it makes the entire system (a
year-old Athlon XP2500+ laptop) practically unusable for 15 seconds to a minute.
Comment 12•20 years ago
|
||
I have the same problem with Thunderbird 1.0.2.
I have 2 IMAP mailboxes and several local folders with thousands of mails (a bit
less of 1 GB on the disk).
After a while Thunderbird is running it grows up to mor of 200 MB of virtual
memory and became really slow.
Andrea
Comment 13•20 years ago
|
||
in my case i think that it is caused by newsgropus. thunderbird eats about 25mb
of memory when launched, but when i open folder with one of them (which has
~50000messages inside) the memory raises to ~120mb and it seems that it is never
released again. then it also start to be slower but i guess it is because of
extensive swapping
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•20 years ago
|
||
1.02 doesn't release db's when you switch folders, so memory use grows. This is
fixed in 1.1a and thus will be in 1.1
Comment 15•19 years ago
|
||
(In reply to comment #14)
> 1.02 doesn't release db's when you switch folders, so memory use grows. This is
> fixed in 1.1a and thus will be in 1.1
and 1.5?
Comment 16•19 years ago
|
||
If it was in 1.1 then it is definitely in 1.5.
Can we close this as WFM?
Comment 17•19 years ago
|
||
Bug still exists in version 2 alpha 1 (20060724)
Comment 18•18 years ago
|
||
fixed by bug 266679 and available through TB 1.5.
If you still have a problem please file a new bug.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 266679 ***
Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Closed: 18 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
Updated•18 years ago
|
Version: unspecified → 1.0
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•