886873 - after some days, thunderbird gets slow with high CPU on linux. imap-only

Status: RESOLVED WORKSFORME

(Thunderbird :: Untriaged, defect)

Description

[fabrice.neyret]

User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/27.0.1453.110 Safari/537.36

Steps to reproduce:

I'm not sure I can get any useful accurate description here, but the point is that I let my thunderbird on several days along, and after a night it gets very slow. After a few days, even exiting can takes huge time. Note that I do have a lot of messages and folders.



Actual results:

time + probably incoming mails, treating spams, filters, indexing.


Expected results:

the amount of CPU time eaten by thunderbird should not grow over time.

Comment 1

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

What is CPU and memory usage growth over time?
imap-only accounts?  pop-only?  or mix?

> Note that I do have a lot of messages and folders.
please give numbers

Does problem go away with thunderbird in safe mode
- http://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/safe-mode ?

Comment 2

[fabrice.neyret]

I have non pop accounts, only 3 or 4 imap + news + rss (no longer working) + local file.

many folders = to much for counting. my 2 main imaps have about 20 root folder each in inbox, each of whih having sub and sub-sub fodlers.

sorry for the other questions, I'll note numbers next time.
qualitatively, it was sufficient to turn a 8 cores 8 Gb  linux to a snail.

Comment 3

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to fabrice.neyret from comment #2)
> I have non pop accounts, only 3 or 4 imap + news + rss (no longer working) +
> local file.
> 
> many folders = to much for counting. my 2 main imaps have about 20 root
> folder each in inbox, each of whih having sub and sub-sub fodlers.

You want to go to the thunderbird profile https://support.mozillamessaging.com/en-US/kb/profiles and the ImapMail directory.

Then 
 ls -R * | wc
and
 ls -R *.msf | wc
will get us the basic info about folders

How many messages in Inbox, Trash and Junk folders of your largest account?
How much memory is Thunderbird using?
How many days before it *starts* to slow down?

Comment 4

[fabrice.neyret]

woops, of course (since the end of the good old mh era I tend to forget there is still some shell-browsable files).

for the mains ones:

ls -R imap-serv.inrialpes.fr | wc -l : 1641
# unused? ls -R zimbra.inrialpes.fr | wc -l : 466
ls -R imap.free.fr | wc -l  : 301
ls -R imap.gmail.com | wc -l  : 21

sizes: 

* inrialpes.fr: 
(all the hierarchy is in inbox. only year2013 undeleted unsorted emails are in inbox.msf. )
(but why the heck are they 2 inbox ?)
3007395 Sep 16 17:32 INBOX-1.msf
   4096 Sep  4 12:32 INBOX-1.sbd/
3534002 Oct 30  2012 INBOX.msf
   4096 May 14  2012 INBOX.sbd/

* free.fr (same remarks)
2858460 Sep 16 17:37 INBOX-1.msf
   4096 Aug 29 17:16 INBOX-1.sbd/
1832021 Oct 15  2012 INBOX.msf
   4096 Jul 16  2012 INBOX.sbd/

* gmail.com (strangely autoorganized by google)
6136822 Sep 16 17:17 INBOX-1.msf
5141678 Oct 15  2012 INBOX.msf

Comment 5

[fabrice.neyret]

right now thunderbird memory is 637 Mo (resident) / 1.6 Go (virtual).
I don't know if is it normal, at least it does not screw up my 8 core machine.

3 hours ago google chrome was the one almost freezing my machine. man, how it is that is gives a full monitor-screen of processus needing 1Gb of virtual mem and .5 1Gb of ram each for just about 8-10 wikipedia/googledoc tabs ? since it was running for several days, I did the same as I do for thunderbird in such case: kill, wait and relaunch with exactly the same tabs, and it worked.

Comment 6

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

(In reply to fabrice.neyret from comment #5)
> right now thunderbird memory is 637 Mo (resident) / 1.6 Go (virtual).
> I don't know if is it normal, at least it does not screw up my 8 core
> machine.

I'd say not normal.

How is version 24?

Comment 7

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

fabrice are you still there?
I estimate you have 800-900 mail folders.

Can you get a log please with setting of 
  msgdb:1,timestamp
per https://wiki.mozilla.org/MailNews:Logging

> google chrome 
is a good product but can eat your lunch on memory.
firefox may be more trim for you in this respect

Comment 8

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

fabrice, if you still have performance issues, or new information, please respond to comment 6 and comment 7. Thanks.

This is incomplete until we have more information

Comment 9

[fabrice.neyret]

woops, sorry for the silence. I no longer have this problem. 
Thanks alot if this results from your action !

Comment 10

[fabrice.neyret]

(my TB is version 31.6.0)

Comment 11

[Wayne Mery (:wsmwk)]

Thanks for the update