Back out 10GB, performance is terrible

mt123 · 9 Nov 2005, 02:29 AM

The 10GB idea is a poor marketing ploy, and affecting my emails performance!

Reverse the changes, I need my email working!

frrick · 9 Nov 2005, 02:56 AM

Yes, it does seem that, in order to "beat the competition" by offering 100GB, sevice quality has been sacrificed, big time.

BKB · 9 Nov 2005, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by frrick
100GB

Now that would be interesting...

Trip · 9 Nov 2005, 03:56 AM

They can't go back now. It would be more trouble for Runbox than just dealing with the difficulties at hand...Backing out of the upgrade would people complaining and moaning twice as bad or worse than when Runbox first limited bandwidth.

But, nonethless, for the first time since late 2003, I've had to divert my mail to other accounts. Truly a sad time indeed...

Trip

speedoflight · 10 Nov 2005, 12:07 AM

Agree with everyone on this thread. Performance has been awful. It's slowed to a crawl for the Secure site. I really expect much better for a paid service. Runbox needs to improve its service or there'd no reason to pay. There are just too many free Webmail options out there today.

frrick · 10 Nov 2005, 12:44 AM

Each morning when I attempt to get my mail, I get more and more frustrated with the service...very depressing to see runbox drop so low, for so long...

MikhailT · 10 Nov 2005, 01:07 AM

Even if Runbox want to become a business email provider, good luck because no way in hell businesses can support the lousy performance and downtime. Runbox can't even do 99% up time where most of the hosting providers can and what are we paying 50 or 5000 bucks for?

Runbox need to spend money to make money, they need to get another hosting provider and get more servers. Cuz if they dont do it before 2006, forget it, they will never come back.

voxson · 12 Nov 2005, 01:24 AM

And like we said, without a good way of organizing your messages (with nested folders) and a good way of finding them (through a good search) then the 10GB are of no use at all.

The problem is that normally Runbox should start focusing on things like that now. But with the service problems all of their attention is on performance (which should have been for granted in the first place for a paid service).

The problem is that Runbox are struggling for quality which should have been for granted and delaying to present new services (10 GB is not a new service, it's a future service and in my opinion is not a service being offered until we will have all gathered email data in the GBs, for me not valid for another couple of years).

Trip · 12 Nov 2005, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by voxson
The problem is that Runbox are struggling for quality...

With all due respect, I wouldn't presume to tell others what Runbox's problems are. For all we know, they may have a stronger customer following than ever. And for as much as you say they're struggling for quality, the 99%+ uptime they're still delivering may satisfy the needs of most of the thousands of Runbox users, inluding their own staff.

Trip

frrick · 12 Nov 2005, 06:15 AM

"the 99%+ uptime they're still delivering ..."

I would be happy with 90%!!

Trip · 12 Nov 2005, 06:44 AM

Quote:

I would be happy with 90%!!

Sometimes I think people have trouble equating what feels like a lot of downtime to what it actually is in numbers....

....via my Host-Tracker account:

Runbox.com
Monitored Since: 2005-01-18/297 day(s)
Total Uptime: 99.75% (14 hour(s) 22 min(s) down/777 checks failed)

So frrick, relax a little bud. Runbox is delivering your 90% and then some.

Trip

**JeffK** · 12 Nov 2005, 06:56 AM

Do you have a figure for fusemail and zoneedit?

Jeff

MikhailT · 12 Nov 2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Sometimes I think people have trouble equating what feels like a lot of downtime to what it actually is in numbers....

....via my Host-Tracker account:

Runbox.com
Monitored Since: 2005-01-18/297 day(s)
Total Uptime: 99.75% (14 hour(s) 22 min(s) down/777 checks failed)

So frrick, relax a little bud. Runbox is delivering your 90% and then some.

Trip

Thats since Jan 18, 2005. If you took the Oct/Nov problems from last year, it would be down somewhere around 90%.

99% uptime is different from very slow performance. You can ping the address all you want, it wont mean that the site is fast.

frrick · 12 Nov 2005, 09:11 AM

Let's see, I can't remember the number of times...

...I couldn't even get to the runbox web interface

...how many times I clicked on a message and got a error message

...how many times I wrote a long e-mail then clicked "send", then waited....for an error message

for me "up-time" means that runbox is usable!!

Trip · 12 Nov 2005, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MikhailT
Thats since Jan 18, 2005. If you took the Oct/Nov problems from last year, it would be down somewhere around 90%.

I'm afriad you're mistaken as well, Mikhail.

Even with incredibly low uptime during both months there, it's not going to knock the uptime down to 90%. Maybe 99%. At most 95%, but not 90%. Not even close. Do you realize what 90% uptime means since last fall? It equates to an average of 3 FULL DAYS (72 HOURS) of downtime per month, for EVERY month. As bad as Runbox has been at different times, I don't recall them ever been down for that much in total time per month, let alone that much time consistantly for months on end, which is what would be necessary to back up your claims. And I've been using their service as my primary account for the majority of my 5 years with them.

Quote:

99% uptime is different from very slow performance. You can ping the address all you want, it wont mean that the site is fast.

Absolutely right, but up until your post, the complaints voiced here about availability were being likened to uptime, and in doing so have been grossly over-estimated in the numerical sense. I'm not downplaying the significance of what it feels like, though. I hate downtime just as much as the next guy, but like you said, ping and uptime are two different animals.

Sorry to dismantle any gripes, but Runbox has been better than some give them credit for,
Trip

9 Nov 2005, 02:29 AM	#1
mt123 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 3	Back out 10GB, performance is terrible The 10GB idea is a poor marketing ploy, and affecting my emails performance! Reverse the changes, I need my email working!

9 Nov 2005, 02:56 AM	#2
frrick Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 61	Yes, it does seem that, in order to "beat the competition" by offering 100GB, sevice quality has been sacrificed, big time.

9 Nov 2005, 03:56 AM	#4
Trip Master of the @ Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: USA Posts: 1,347 Representative of: Runbox.com	They can't go back now. It would be more trouble for Runbox than just dealing with the difficulties at hand...Backing out of the upgrade would people complaining and moaning twice as bad or worse than when Runbox first limited bandwidth. But, nonethless, for the first time since late 2003, I've had to divert my mail to other accounts. Truly a sad time indeed... Trip

10 Nov 2005, 12:07 AM	#5
speedoflight Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 50	Agree with everyone on this thread. Performance has been awful. It's slowed to a crawl for the Secure site. I really expect much better for a paid service. Runbox needs to improve its service or there'd no reason to pay. There are just too many free Webmail options out there today.

10 Nov 2005, 12:44 AM	#6
frrick Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 61	Each morning when I attempt to get my mail, I get more and more frustrated with the service...very depressing to see runbox drop so low, for so long...

10 Nov 2005, 01:07 AM	#7
MikhailT Member Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 76	Even if Runbox want to become a business email provider, good luck because no way in hell businesses can support the lousy performance and downtime. Runbox can't even do 99% up time where most of the hosting providers can and what are we paying 50 or 5000 bucks for? Runbox need to spend money to make money, they need to get another hosting provider and get more servers. Cuz if they dont do it before 2006, forget it, they will never come back.

12 Nov 2005, 01:24 AM	#8
voxson Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 62	And like we said, without a good way of organizing your messages (with nested folders) and a good way of finding them (through a good search) then the 10GB are of no use at all. The problem is that normally Runbox should start focusing on things like that now. But with the service problems all of their attention is on performance (which should have been for granted in the first place for a paid service). The problem is that Runbox are struggling for quality which should have been for granted and delaying to present new services (10 GB is not a new service, it's a future service and in my opinion is not a service being offered until we will have all gathered email data in the GBs, for me not valid for another couple of years).

12 Nov 2005, 06:15 AM	#10
frrick Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 61	"the 99%+ uptime they're still delivering ..." I would be happy with 90%!!

12 Nov 2005, 06:56 AM	#12
JeffK Moderator Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Kingaroy, AU Posts: 3,177	Do you have a figure for fusemail and zoneedit? Jeff

12 Nov 2005, 09:11 AM	#14
frrick Member Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 61	Let's see, I can't remember the number of times... ...I couldn't even get to the runbox web interface ...how many times I clicked on a message and got a error message ...how many times I wrote a long e-mail then clicked "send", then waited....for an error message for me "up-time" means that runbox is usable!!