|
Runbox Forum Everything related to Runbox should go here: suggestions, comments, complaints, questions, technical issues, etc. |
|
Thread Tools |
20 Mar 2016, 07:32 AM | #1 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Macao
Posts: 2,161
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 |
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 |
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 |
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, 08:27 AM | #5 |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Macao
Posts: 2,161
Representative of:
tls-mail.com |
|
21 Mar 2016, 08:45 AM | #6 |
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.
|
21 Mar 2016, 12:40 PM | #7 | |
Cornerstone of the Community
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 555
Representative of:
Runbox.com |
Quote:
Kim |
|
10 Apr 2016, 06:31 AM | #8 |
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.
|
11 Apr 2016, 12:08 AM | #9 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 395
|
Quote:
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 |
|
11 Apr 2016, 03:15 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 162
|
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!
|
11 Apr 2016, 05:24 AM | #11 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 395
|
Quote:
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 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 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 |
|
11 Apr 2016, 09:38 AM | #12 | |
The "e" in e-mail
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Macao
Posts: 2,161
Representative of:
tls-mail.com |
Quote:
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. |
|
11 Apr 2016, 08:38 PM | #13 | |
Essential Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 395
|
Quote:
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 |
|
12 Apr 2016, 03:51 AM | #14 |
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 |
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 ). |