Both RB webmail systems get slow

jeffpan · 20 Mar 2016, 07:32 AM

Hi

I have tried both the official and the roundcube webmail, they are slow to me for most time.
email list is slow, message open is also slow.
I didn't try the light version.

Do you have the similar issue? is there an official improvement to the access of out of europe?

Thanks.

William9 · 20 Mar 2016, 07:39 AM

I haven't noticed a change. RB has never been snappy in my opinion, but the service works satisfactorily. There was some improvement in speed with a server upgrade several months ago.

odedp · 20 Mar 2016, 03:39 PM

Works flawlessly for me

Eireannach · 21 Mar 2016, 12:29 AM

Works fine for me too - maybe you are loading a lot of messages per page ?

jeffpan · 21 Mar 2016, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eireannach

Works fine for me too - maybe you are loading a lot of messages per page ?

no. just a test account.

smithmb001 · 21 Mar 2016, 08:45 AM

RunBox RMM web mail runs like it always does for me, fast. I don't use RoundCube.

kservik · 21 Mar 2016, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffpan

Hi

I have tried both the official and the roundcube webmail, they are slow to me for most time.
email list is slow, message open is also slow.
I didn't try the light version.

Do you have the similar issue? is there an official improvement to the access of out of europe?

Thanks.

If you are using Runbox from China, there might be some latency. Some days more than others. That is what other users from China has reported.

Kim

sheprd · 10 Apr 2016, 06:31 AM

Tried roundcube and when I try to open an email it highlights in red but will not open the email. Latest browser the one for OS10 shows a much better interface than FF browser. Neither will open email located in the IN box. Anyone else having this prob? the latest Browser is Edge browser.

Jacinto · 11 Apr 2016, 12:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kservik

If you are using Runbox from China, there might be some latency. Some days more than others. That is what other users from China has reported.

Kim

I connect to Runbox from the eastern U.S. and there always is latency. Occasionally, I'm not able to connect at all.

Either Runbox's hosts don't have speedy Transatlantic connections, or one or more governmental outfits are slowing them down while filtering them, or both.

--
Jacinto

smithmb001 · 11 Apr 2016, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacinto

I connect to Runbox from the eastern U.S. and there always is latency. Occasionally, I'm not able to connect at all.
--
Jacinto

I'm an east coaster too and have not experienced any issues with latency using RMM web mail or connection issues (excluding known outages). I cannot speak for other methods. Even on the east coast, there are many counties that have terrible or no Internet access. I could name a few within 100 miles of where I live that are still stuck using dial-up or satellite only. It is hard to believe they are stuck using technology that went the wayside in our area back in the early 1990s!

Jacinto · 11 Apr 2016, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smithmb001

I'm an east coaster too and have not experienced any issues with latency using RMM web mail or connection issues (excluding known outages). I cannot speak for other methods. Even on the east coast, there are many counties that have terrible or no Internet access. I could name a few within 100 miles of where I live that are still stuck using dial-up or satellite only. It is hard to believe they are stuck using technology that went the wayside in our area back in the early 1990s!

I guess you're lucky, smithmb001.

No dial-up or satellite for me. My Internet connection is not the fastest, but, I believe, is faster than what Runbox can handle.

For example pinging runbox.com:

Code:

 ~ # ping runbox.com
PING runbox.com (91.220.196.211) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=125 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=2 ttl=47 time=121 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=3 ttl=47 time=122 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=4 ttl=47 time=122 ms

--- runbox.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 121.621/123.134/125.308/1.390 ms

Compared to pinging fastmail.fm:

Code:

 ~ # ping fastmail.fm
PING fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=25.5 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=14.6 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=17.9 ms

--- fastmail.fm ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.619/18.673/25.527/4.134 ms

It is not a completely fair comparison because pings to Runbox have to cross the Atlantic twice, whereas pings to Fastmail don't.

I have praised Runbox and its team many times on this forum. However, because there has always been latency or occasional failure to connect, I don't use Runbox as my primary incoming host.

--
Jacinto

jeffpan · 11 Apr 2016, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacinto

I guess you're lucky, smithmb001.

No dial-up or satellite for me. My Internet connection is not the fastest, but, I believe, is faster than what Runbox can handle.

For example pinging runbox.com:

Code:

 ~ # ping runbox.com
PING runbox.com (91.220.196.211) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=125 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=2 ttl=47 time=121 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=3 ttl=47 time=122 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com (91.220.196.211): icmp_seq=4 ttl=47 time=122 ms

--- runbox.com ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 121.621/123.134/125.308/1.390 ms

Compared to pinging fastmail.fm:

Code:

 ~ # ping fastmail.fm
PING fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=1 ttl=52 time=25.5 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=2 ttl=52 time=16.5 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=3 ttl=52 time=14.6 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm (66.111.4.55): icmp_seq=4 ttl=52 time=17.9 ms

--- fastmail.fm ping statistics ---
4 packets transmitted, 4 received, 0% packet loss, time 3004ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.619/18.673/25.527/4.134 ms

It is not a completely fair comparison because pings to Runbox have to cross the Atlantic twice, whereas pings to Fastmail don't.

I have praised Runbox and its team many times on this forum. However, because there has always been latency or occasional failure to connect, I don't use Runbox as my primary incoming host.

--
Jacinto

Here southern China FM is much faster than RB. it's may due to some issues, like UI framework, connection delay, gov filter etc. But FM does have a better result here.

Jacinto · 11 Apr 2016, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeffpan

Here southern China FM is much faster than RB. it's may due to some issues, like UI framework, connection delay, gov filter etc. But FM does have a better result here.

Fastmail equipment is colocated with the New York Internet Company (NYIC). NYIC has facilities in Seattle and Los Angeles. Not sure whether or not Fastmail is able to use them. If it is, that would probably account for the faster connection speed.

It could also be that traffic from South China to Norway is routed through the U.S., thusly adding Transpacific and Transatlantic crossings.

I wonder if anyone who uses Runbox in Western Europe would chime in about her or his experience with latency (or the lack thereof)?

--
Jacinto

gecko · 12 Apr 2016, 03:51 AM

Here comes a ping from Western Europe:

# ping www.runbox.com
PING runbox.com 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=37.7 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=38.6 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=37.7 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=37.7 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=38.4 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=38.5 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=36.7 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=37.9 ms
64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=37.6 ms
^C
--- runbox.com ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8012ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 36.763/37.910/38.629/0.606 ms

BTW, Runbox' webmail is always really fast for me. No reason to complain here.

Cheers
gecko

gecko · 12 Apr 2016, 03:56 AM

And just for the record:

# ping fastmail.fm
PING fastmail.fm 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=96.5 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=96.2 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=95.3 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=97.5 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=96.2 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=96.6 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=94.8 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=99.0 ms
64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=97.0 ms
^C
--- fastmail.fm ping statistics ---
9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 94.895/96.629/99.029/1.136 ms

So it does make a difference whether you live on this side of the pond or over yonder (feel free to choose which side is where

).

20 Mar 2016, 07:32 AM	#1
jeffpan The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Macao Posts: 2,160 Representative of: tls-mail.com	Both RB webmail systems get slow Hi I have tried both the official and the roundcube webmail, they are slow to me for most time. email list is slow, message open is also slow. I didn't try the light version. Do you have the similar issue? is there an official improvement to the access of out of europe? Thanks.

20 Mar 2016, 07:39 AM	#2
William9 The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,281	I haven't noticed a change. RB has never been snappy in my opinion, but the service works satisfactorily. There was some improvement in speed with a server upgrade several months ago.

20 Mar 2016, 03:39 PM	#3
odedp Master of the @ Join Date: Mar 2000 Location: Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL Posts: 1,666	Works flawlessly for me

21 Mar 2016, 12:29 AM	#4
Eireannach Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Location: Ireland Posts: 40	Works fine for me too - maybe you are loading a lot of messages per page ?

21 Mar 2016, 08:45 AM	#6
smithmb001 Senior Member Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 162	RunBox RMM web mail runs like it always does for me, fast. I don't use RoundCube.

10 Apr 2016, 06:31 AM	#8
sheprd The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: VA, USA Posts: 2,789	Tried roundcube and when I try to open an email it highlights in red but will not open the email. Latest browser the one for OS10 shows a much better interface than FF browser. Neither will open email located in the IN box. Anyone else having this prob? the latest Browser is Edge browser.

12 Apr 2016, 03:51 AM	#14
gecko Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 107	Here comes a ping from Western Europe: # ping www.runbox.com PING runbox.com 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=1 ttl=54 time=37.7 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=38.6 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=3 ttl=54 time=37.7 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=4 ttl=54 time=37.7 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=5 ttl=54 time=38.4 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=6 ttl=54 time=38.5 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=7 ttl=54 time=36.7 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=8 ttl=54 time=37.9 ms 64 bytes from aibo.runbox.com: icmp_seq=9 ttl=54 time=37.6 ms ^C --- runbox.com ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8012ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 36.763/37.910/38.629/0.606 ms BTW, Runbox' webmail is always really fast for me. No reason to complain here. Cheers gecko

12 Apr 2016, 03:56 AM	#15
gecko Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 107	And just for the record: # ping fastmail.fm PING fastmail.fm 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=1 ttl=51 time=96.5 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=2 ttl=51 time=96.2 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=3 ttl=51 time=95.3 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=4 ttl=51 time=97.5 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=5 ttl=51 time=96.2 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=6 ttl=51 time=96.6 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=7 ttl=51 time=94.8 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=8 ttl=51 time=99.0 ms 64 bytes from www.fastmail.fm: icmp_seq=9 ttl=51 time=97.0 ms ^C --- fastmail.fm ping statistics --- 9 packets transmitted, 9 received, 0% packet loss, time 8003ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 94.895/96.629/99.029/1.136 ms So it does make a difference whether you live on this side of the pond or over yonder (feel free to choose which side is where ).