On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Linda Walsh <dove...@tlinx.org> wrote: > > > > ` Kui Zhang wrote: >> >> Hello >> >> I have a user with 2500+ sub folders. Total mailboxes size is around >> 6G. (mdbox, dovecot 2:2.0.14) >> >> Syncing/Receiving appears to be slow, with outlook 2007. He does not >> want to switch to an alternative, due to various reasons. >> >> Any one else having similar issue? >> Anything else I should do to narrow down the issue? >> > > ---- > I can't speak for outlook 2007, but back in outlook 2000, as well as > outlook 2002, it spoke a broken dialect of IMAP that would cause it to > hang if you enabled it to read multiple mailboxes at one time. > > The only safe way I found to use it was to only let it use 1 connection at > a time, and even then it wasn't impossible to cause to to fail. > > Perhaps MS limited outlook to only 1 connection to IMAP servers -- when I > spoke to the engineer, they said that really had IMAP support at the > lowest level, as it allowed the use of non-MS servers and mail servers -- > and they only wanted to support Exchange (in order to get sites to buy > exchange!)... >
I thought it might have been something anti-competitive... We decided to give outlook 2k10 a try. Everything appears to work so far. It seems to be using only 1 connection... 2k7 was using 5 connections, with multiple connections in idle state(adding inotify watches) > The issue was reported broken in 2000, and they had not fixed it by > 2002 (office XP), so I moved to thunderbird... > thunderbird does not really work for us, due to amount of emails per mailbox. It was hogging all the memory + cpu. Trying out claw-mail. It is working really well. > I missed a few-several features, but I didn't miss the slowness and > unreliability in everyday reading of email. > > Another problem -- AFAIK, outlook is only 32bit. My mom gets > harassed, constantly to move things out of her primary .pst file and into > 'archives', (where she can't easily access them and they don't have to be > indexed...) because, the internal format became more strained as it got > larger. With 6G of folders, indexing those, your user might be hitting > outlook memory problems (not running out, but 'thrashing')... > > If possible, he might try unsubbing to older boxes on his main > account, and setup an alternate account to 'go into the archives'...that > way syncing only with currently active folders should go much faster)... > > Send him my condolences... > > > -l > > > > >> >> Thanks >> KuiZ >> >
