If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
I'll tell you what this folder is. It's actually my Thunderbird News folder (exactly what I'm using to ask this question here), which exists under the my User folder structure. The problem was discovered when I started doing daily backups of my User folder and discovered that the User folder was taking forever. After investigating it some, I figured out that the problem was this particular substructure under News. Once I excluded the News folder, backups finished 6 times faster! So I moved the backups of the News folder to their own job, and let the rest of the User folder get backed up separately. Before, you ask, I only backup the News folder once a week, but it's still a pain in the ass watching it take so long even once a week. Some other background. When this particular backup is happening, it's not the drives that are showing as busy, it's the CPU cores! 4 out of the 8 cores on my FX-8300 are fluctuating between 50% to 100% busy, while the other 4 are not that busy. Yousuf Khan As a test, disable your anti-virus software and run your TB data-only backup job. As another test, make sure to *exit* Thunderbird (check there are no instances of TB in Task Manager's Processes tab), and check if the backup job is just as slow. Do you leave TB running all the time? Does the backup job run as a scheduled event at a time after you would've unloaded TB, like you use TB during the day (say 8AM to 11 PM), unload it when done, and you schedule the backup job to run early morning (say 4 AM)? VSS will encounter problems with databases that are not VSS aware. Microsoft's SQL Server is VSS aware, but others are not. The recommendation in backup programs, even those using VSS, for database programs that are not VSS aware is to schedule their shutdown before the backup, schedule the backup while the database program is down, and restart the database program after the backup finishes. While this can be done using Task Scheduler using event triggers (provided the database program issues an event on shutdown), it's a pain to figure out the script-like code you have to use to define for the trigger of the scheduled event. There are schedulers that are more flexible that can make their events dependent: task 3 runs only after task 2 ran and returned good status which runs only after task 1 completed and returned good status. https://knowledgebase.macrium.com/di...ware+databases I sincerely doubt Thunderbird provides its own VSS writer. What does Tbird use to manage its message store? Isn't it SQLite? SQLite is not a VSS-aware database program. In fact, it isn't a database program at all. It's a library from which some program can call its functions (aka methods). It would be up to the calling program to be VSS-aware, and I doubt Mozilla ever added that to Tbird. http://sqlite.1065341.n5.nabble.com/...r-td85887.html I remember back when using MS Outlook with POP which stored its message store in a PST file that backups would often skip that database. While Outlook was running, its database couldn't be backed up because it wasn't only in-use but also locked as a database. MS didn't provide a VSS writer just for Outlook. Some users used batch files that would kill Outlook, run the backup (to include Outlook's message store), and reload Outlook after the backup finished. However, Outlook has no way to gracefully unload it. There is no command-line switch for Outlook to ask it to unload. You had to kill it, and that's always a bad way to smash a program with open files since corruption can occur to the files. Some backup programs worked around the problem by installing an extension into Outlook that would exit it and start the backup program, and the backup program would later restart Outlook. I'm sure there were other workarounds. Since Outlook is a client, not a server, there really was no need to leave it running 24x7, but a lot of users ran it that way, so it available upon their return to their computer. Not all programs that manage a database are VSS-aware. Usually the easiest solution is to make sure the program using the database is not running at the time of the backup job. Does Tbird have a command-line switch that will unload the currently loaded instance(s) of Tbird? Using taskkill.exe is abrupt and can result in file corruption. If Tbird can be requested to gracefully shutdown, you could do that in a script, run the backup job, and reload Tbird (if you can get scripts via Powershell, VBscript, or batch to work in Reflect). I doubt Tbird generates an event when it exits (i.e., you don't see anything in Event Viewer). If it does, you can define a scheduled event in Task Scheduler to run the backup job that triggers on the exit event of Tbird. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 4/27/2020 2:03 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
What did you use to check if there were junctions defined within the folder? For example, you could use Nirsoft's NTFSLinksView tool to scan for junctions to list them. You can specify the start folder from where to search, like the folder with the 500K+ files, or search from the root folder of a drive (junctions cannot point to other drives). Alas, if you pick the problematic folder, a scan will only show any junctions in that folder, not those that point at that folder. You might want to scan from the root folder, and then check if that folder is under a junction. Windows has been using junctions for a long time, especially when Microsoft decides to change the name of the special folder, like changing "Documents and Settings", the old name, and "Documents", that both point to C:\Users. Could be your problematic folder is under a junction, like Documents. I don't have to look for junctions, I know where they are. If there were junctions here, I would have put them in myself, otherwise they aren't there. Yousuf Khan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 4/27/2020 12:04 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
If there are 580,000 files in the News folder, then you've probably configured your Thunderbird News account(s) to use one file for each article instead of one file for each newsgroup. If so, it's probably best to bite the bullet and convert to one file per newsgroup. That probably needs an export and (re-)import and probably will be time-consuming, but at least then you'll solve the actual problem. FYI, my setup - not Thunderbird - has nearly a million articles, but only some 600 files. Yes, that is exactly the problem, I was getting at. Does Thunderbird have a new news file format available? My assumption was that Thunderbird only does 1 file/message? What's the option to convert? Yousuf Khan |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 4/27/2020 2:29 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
As a test, disable your anti-virus software and run your TB data-only backup job. Yes, that's been done years ago too. This folder has been a major headache for years now. And at one time, I found that the AV software spending tons of time scanning this folder too, so I put an exclusion in it for this folder. The AV doesn't ever scan in this folder anymore. As another test, make sure to*exit* Thunderbird (check there are no instances of TB in Task Manager's Processes tab), and check if the backup job is just as slow. Yeah, but it doesn't matter, Thunderbird's email folders don't suffer from this problem. So even if Thunderbird were running in the background, and even if it were VSS aware, then this problem would be happening during backups of the email store as well, but it's only happening in the newsgroup store. The email store is much, much more active than the newsgroup store, but emails aren't affected, just newsgroups. VSS will encounter problems with databases that are not VSS aware. Microsoft's SQL Server is VSS aware, but others are not. The recommendation in backup programs, even those using VSS, for database programs that are not VSS aware is to schedule their shutdown before the backup, schedule the backup while the database program is down, and restart the database program after the backup finishes. While this can be done using Task Scheduler using event triggers (provided the database program issues an event on shutdown), it's a pain to figure out the script-like code you have to use to define for the trigger of the scheduled event. There are schedulers that are more flexible that can make their events dependent: task 3 runs only after task 2 ran and returned good status which runs only after task 1 completed and returned good status. Thunderbird never downloads newsgroup messages in the background, like it does with email, it only downloads them when you explicitly open the newsgroups account. This is also related to what I said above about how much more busier the Thunderbird email store is compared to the newsgroup store. Thunderbird may be doing things in the background but only with email. It's not related to VSS, I've already given you the most likely cause of the problem: there are over half million files, and each file is inefficiently taking up little over half of the NTFS cluster, rather than spreading a lesser number of files over many clusters. The real question is how can we make NTFS more efficient at handling all of these little files? NTFS is great at handling big files, but tiny little files no so much. Yousuf Khan |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 2020-04-26 18:24, Yousuf Khan wrote:
I have a folder on one of my SSD drives that takes 8 to 10 hours to back up. It is only about 1.4 GB, but it is allocated 2.4 GB of space altogether, and there are 580,000 files here. Indicates that per file it's using up a little bit over half of a cluster on average. File system is NTFS. Meanwhile, this same drive can backup the remainder of the drive in under 2 hours, and the remainder of the drive is 390 GB! Is NTFS this inefficient for small files like this? Â*Â*Â*Â*Yousuf Khan Hi Yousuf, When I see things like this, it is usually a failing drive, especially when the index on teh offending directory never finishes. This will show up like a soar thumb if yo run your drive through gsmartcontrol: check the error logs and run the self tests http://gsmartcontrol.sourceforge.net....php/Downloads Get back to us! -T |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 2020-04-27 07:30, Ken Blake wrote:
SinceÂ*theÂ*folderÂ*isÂ*onÂ*anÂ*SSD,Â*fragmentatio nÂ*shouldn'tÂ*makeÂ*anyÂ*difference. And you will reduce your wear life doing a defragment |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 4/27/2020 12:04 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: If there are 580,000 files in the News folder, then you've probably configured your Thunderbird News account(s) to use one file for each article instead of one file for each newsgroup. If so, it's probably best to bite the bullet and convert to one file per newsgroup. That probably needs an export and (re-)import and probably will be time-consuming, but at least then you'll solve the actual problem. FYI, my setup - not Thunderbird - has nearly a million articles, but only some 600 files. Yes, that is exactly the problem, I was getting at. Does Thunderbird have a new news file format available? My assumption was that Thunderbird only does 1 file/message? What's the option to convert? Yousuf Khan These are examples of the setting in the Config Editor. Note that the GUI "Server Settings" page has the choice grayed out once the tool is running, implying these can't be switched on the fly from the GUI. And changing them here, doesn't mean a "converter" is going to run, because the tool isn't going to know the "before" and "after" and figure out what needs to be done, or whether it should even be doing it. mail.server.server1.storeContractID = @mozilla.org/msgstore/maildirstore;1 mail.server.server4.storeContractID = @mozilla.org/msgstore/berkeleystore;1 You could try some sort of Import/Export strategy, pulling from an EML format setup, into an MBOX format setup. Berkeleystore, as far as I know, is the "file per box" method. The so-called Mork Storage Format, of which there is a rudimentary parser available. Maildirstore, is a file per message method, like an EML at a guess. You can see this better than I can, as mine are all going to be Berkeleystore. Picture of Version 45 or so. Option not available/implemented before Version 38. https://i.postimg.cc/Jh7qmhzN/TBird-stores-option.gif Paul |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
T wrote:
On 2020-04-27 07:30, Ken Blake wrote: Since the folder is on an SSD, fragmentation shouldn't make any difference. And you will reduce your wear life doing a defragment One way to do this, is with a Macrium backup and restore, where you use the forward and back button, go back and "edit" the size of the destination directory. This causes the restoration to change restore mode, and it seems to do a file-by-file write when challenged with even an insignificant file system size change. You don't have to "pinch it", and in fact pinching it is not recommended. Like, make the partition 1MB smaller, should be enough to trigger file-by-file write mode. This results in a "mostly defragmented" disk. Due to the handling of the $MFT and the reserved space for $MFT, there is some "friction fragmentation" as the reserved space gets squeezed. I can see a little bit of fluff that doesn't get fixed. The end result of changing the partition size on the Macrium restore, is a mostly defragmented partition. To save on your SSD while doing experiments like this, you can test on hard drives, and evaluate using nfi.exe (mentioned in the thread already). This approach also places an upper bound on the number of writes and the amount of flash life you're paying for the privilege. The Windows 10 Defragmenter is pretty good, but some of the other defragmenters out there, they can run all night, and that can't be good for an SSD. https://i.postimg.cc/Y0TCt8K5/macrium-as-defragger.gif I noticed that "side effect" one day after a restore, where I'd changed the destination partition size. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Doing that to the 1.4TB partition in that picture was mostly a joke, as on a data partition, you don't really need to do that. I wanted to see whether it would change the symptoms of another bug I'm working on (and it didn't help). Paul |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 4/27/2020 2:29 PM, VanguardLH wrote: As a test, disable your anti-virus software and run your TB data-only backup job. Yes, that's been done years ago too. This folder has been a major headache for years now. And at one time, I found that the AV software spending tons of time scanning this folder too, so I put an exclusion in it for this folder. The AV doesn't ever scan in this folder anymore. I just thought of something else: is that flagged as a special folder? Right-click on the folder, and select Properties. Is there a Customize tab? If so, select it, and check the setting for "Optimize this folder for". Set to "General items" (instead of "Pictures"). It's not related to VSS, I've already given you the most likely cause of the problem: there are over half million files, and each file is inefficiently taking up little over half of the NTFS cluster, rather than spreading a lesser number of files over many clusters. The real question is how can we make NTFS more efficient at handling all of these little files? NTFS is great at handling big files, but tiny little files no so much. Slack space is also a problem with FAT16/32, ext, or other file systems where AUs (Allocation Units) are clusters or groups of sectors. The file system will allocate a number of clusters that will encompass the size of the file, but will be equal to or larger than the file's content. Slack space is *not* just an NTFS problem. For NTFS, files under the size for an MFT's file record are stored inside the MFT since there is already enough space to hold the file there. Instead of the MFT file record having a pointer to the small file outside the MFT where there would be a lot of slack space (the small file is nowhere the size of a cluster), the MFT file record *is* the file. An MFT file is 1 KB in size. If the file is smaller than that, the file is stored in the MFT record. Actually, because the MFT file record has a fixed 42-byte table at its start and holds file name and system attributes. https://hetmanrecovery.com/recovery_...ucture.htm#id4 According to specifications, MFT record size is determined by the value of a variable in the boot sector. In practical terms, all current versions of Microsoft Windows are using records sized 1024 bytes. The first 42 bytes store the header. The header contains 12 fields. The other 982 bytes do not have a fixed structure, and are used to keep attributes. The MFT is not infinite in size. NTFS has a limit of 4,294,967,295 files per disk (well, per volume). Your 580,000 files is only 0.01% of NTFS' capacity for file count. Obviously there are lots of files elsewhere in that volume. NTFS doesn't have a problem between small and large files regarding addressing them. It's the level of fragmentation that cause a problem. Yeah, you think you don't need to defragment and should not defragment an SSD because, after all, accessing memory at one address is the same speed as accessing other memory. However, NTFS cannot support an infinite chain of fragments for a file. Each fragment consumes an extended file record in the MFT (a record outside the MFT). There are limitations in every file system. Around 1.5 million fragments is the limit per file under NTFS. Doesn't Thunderbird have a compaction function? Used it yet? I don't know if that will eliminate any fragmention of the files used to store the messages or articles which, as I recall, are stored as seperate files instead of inside a database, but I haven't used TB in a long time. Users don't think they ever need to defragment an SSD. All those extra writes with no effective change in data content reduces the lifespan of the SSD (writes are destructive). Sure, when there are few or dozen fragments then the extra writes to defragment are wasting the SSD. It takes time to chain from the MFT's record and through every external extended record (which consumes space in the file system) to build up the entire file. It's not one lookup in the MFT for the file. It's a chained lookup for every fragment. IOPS will increase as fragmentation increases, and perhaps why you are seeing high CPU usage when backing up those files. Most users think of fragmentation as a performance issue with moving physical media, like hard disks. Fragmentation ON ANY MEDIA is still an I/O overhead issue and inflates the IOPS to process them all. Yes, there is a limit in NTFS to the number of fragments that a file may have, but the more fragments there are the more space is consumed in the file system to track those fragments and the more CPU consumed to process the fragments. When an OS sees a file comprised of multiple fragments, there are more multiple I/O operations to process the whole file. If Windows see 20 pieces at the logical layer, there are 20 I/O operations to process the whole file as a read or write. Fragmentation is not just a performance issue at the physical layer. It is also a performance factor at the logical layer (file system). Extreme fragmentation requires lots of repeated writes to a file. I don't know what you've been doing with those files in the problematic folder. If they are photos, you rarely edit those, just copy them. Similarly, for a backup job, it has to perform the IOPS'es needed to read all the files included in the backup. I have under 400,000 files on my entire OS+app drive (which is a partition spanning the entire SSD). You have more than that in one folder. From your description, the backup job is CPU bound with all those IOPS. Do you really have over 500K files in just one folder? You never considered creating a hierarchical structure of subfolders to hold groups of those files based on a common criteria for each subfolder? Just because you can dump hundreds of thousands of files into a single folder doesn't mean that's a good behavior. By the say, in Macrium Reflect, did you configure your backup job to throttle its use of the CPU? That's to prevent a backup job from sucking up all the CPU while preventing the computer being usable to the user during the backup. In a Reflect backup job, you can configure its priority. Well, if you set it at max (which is still, I believe, less than real-time priority), that process sucks up most of the CPU and leave little for use by other processes making the computer unusable to you. Even if you schedule the backup to run when you're not at the computer, other backgrounded processes, like your startup programs, and even the OS want some CPU slices. The compression you select for a backup job also dictates how much it consumes the CPU. You will find very little difference in the size of the backup file between Medium (recommended) and High compression levels. The backup job will take a lot longer trying to compress more the backup file, but the result is little improvement in reduction of the backup file, especially for non-compressible file formats, like images, but wastes a lot of CPU time for insignificant gain. I did not find an option in Reflect to throttle how much bandwidth it uses on the data bus, like a limit on IOPS. Not for network traffic, but how busy it keeps the data bus. If it is flooded, and especially for a high[er] priority process, you have to wait to do any other data I/O. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 4/27/2020 12:04 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: If there are 580,000 files in the News folder, then you've probably configured your Thunderbird News account(s) to use one file for each article instead of one file for each newsgroup. If so, it's probably best to bite the bullet and convert to one file per newsgroup. That probably needs an export and (re-)import and probably will be time-consuming, but at least then you'll solve the actual problem. FYI, my setup - not Thunderbird - has nearly a million articles, but only some 600 files. Yes, that is exactly the problem, I was getting at. Does Thunderbird have a new news file format available? My assumption was that Thunderbird only does 1 file/message? What's the option to convert? It's not a new News file format, it's a different format. You set the format in the News account: Tools - Account settings - your news account in the left pane - 'Server Settings' page - Message Storage - Message Store Type:. This field *should* be set to 'File per folder (mbox)'. Yours is probably set to 'File per message (maildir)'. For your account - i.e. an *existing* account - you probably cannot change this setting, i.e. you can only set it when you create the account. Hence my comment about exporting and (re-)importing. If you cannot change the setting, you will have to export all the articles from your current account and then re-import all articles into a new account with 'Message Store Type: File per folder (mbox)'. The basic Thunderbird program has no export facility and only very limited import functionality. For import of e-mail (from Windows Mail), I have used the Thunderbird ImportExportTools [1] Extension, but I have not used it for News and not for export. ImportExportTools can export on a per-folder basis, so you could try to export just one folder/newsgroup and then import it into a new account to see if it works for News. Exporting is a copy-type operation, i.e. the source remains untouched, and if you import to a *new* account, the old account remains untouched. IOW, it's a totally safe operation. If ImportExportTools can not solve your problem, you'll probably have to search the Thunderbird support site(s)/forum(s) or/and post there. [1] https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-GB/thunderbird/addon/importexporttools/?src=userprofile |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
Frank Slootweg wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: On 4/27/2020 12:04 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: If there are 580,000 files in the News folder, then you've probably configured your Thunderbird News account(s) to use one file for each article instead of one file for each newsgroup. If so, it's probably best to bite the bullet and convert to one file per newsgroup. That probably needs an export and (re-)import and probably will be time-consuming, but at least then you'll solve the actual problem. FYI, my setup - not Thunderbird - has nearly a million articles, but only some 600 files. Yes, that is exactly the problem, I was getting at. Does Thunderbird have a new news file format available? My assumption was that Thunderbird only does 1 file/message? What's the option to convert? It's not a new News file format, it's a different format. You set the format in the News account: Tools - Account settings - your news account in the left pane - 'Server Settings' page - Message Storage - Message Store Type:. This field *should* be set to 'File per folder (mbox)'. Yours is probably set to 'File per message (maildir)'. For your account - i.e. an *existing* account - you probably cannot change this setting, i.e. you can only set it when you create the account. Hence my comment about exporting and (re-)importing. If you cannot change the setting, you will have to export all the articles from your current account and then re-import all articles into a new account with 'Message Store Type: File per folder (mbox)'. The basic Thunderbird program has no export facility and only very limited import functionality. For import of e-mail (from Windows Mail), I have used the Thunderbird ImportExportTools [1] Extension, but I have not used it for News and not for export. ImportExportTools can export on a per-folder basis, so you could try to export just one folder/newsgroup and then import it into a new account to see if it works for News. Exporting is a copy-type operation, i.e. the source remains untouched, and if you import to a *new* account, the old account remains untouched. IOW, it's a totally safe operation. If ImportExportTools can not solve your problem, you'll probably have to search the Thunderbird support site(s)/forum(s) or/and post there. [1] https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-GB/thunderbird/addon/importexporttools/?src=userprofile The one I was looking at the other day, said that it didn't handle stuff in the News folder specifically. As for the availability of the MailboxStore option in the Server settings, the claim is that you must use this immediately when the installation of Thunderbird is brand new. In my experiments yesterday, I tried to "clean out" my profile, and tried not to leave any .msf files, then set the prefs.js with the maildirstore preference, and that *still* wasn't enough to make it work. I'm going to have to nuke the damn thing and start from scratch, to see if I can get it to work. One other weirdness from yesterdays experiment, is after I was finished with my failed experiment, I took the ZIP file holding my unbroken profile, and started to restore it to my SSD drive. I was greeted by write rates of arounf 2MB/sec on my SSD. It took forever to restore the fleet of .msf (file per box) style files. And when I opened Task Manager, MsMpEng was railed on one core, scanning everything being written into the profile area. I've done plenty of other stuff on the computer, where it doesn't do that with quite the same level of venom. (If I unpack an .ova on a scratch drive, it does that at several hundred megabytes per second. As if MsMpEng didn't care.) Paul |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
Paul wrote:
[...] As for the availability of the MailboxStore option in the Server settings, the claim is that you must use this immediately when the installation of Thunderbird is brand new. I think that's not correct. The *installation* doesn't have to be brand new, the *account* in Thunderbird must be new, i.e. just created. I added a new New account and could set 'Message Store Type:' to either 'File per folder (mbox)' or 'File per message (maildir)'. In my experiments yesterday, I tried to "clean out" my profile, and tried not to leave any .msf files, then set the prefs.js with the maildirstore preference, and that *still* wasn't enough to make it work. I'm going to have to nuke the damn thing and start from scratch, to see if I can get it to work. There's no need to fiddle with preferences as there are perfectly good settings in the GUI. I think the fiddling might actually have been counter-productive, because you might have been setting a global default instead of a account-specific setting. [...] |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 4/27/2020 2:09 PM, Paul wrote:
OK, show me a chunk of nfi.exe output, just for files in the magical folder. Just enough to capture the essence of what's going on. What I'm looking for is filesystem tuning advice, not process tuning advice. Looking at CPU processes is just a wild goose-chase. Yes, the CPU is being hammered, but we know which processes are responsible and why, it's hardly surprising which ones they are (i.e. Macrium Reflect binaries), so it's trivial. Anyways, since I'm not getting that advice here, as it turned out, I just received a new SSD (as an RMA of a previous SSD, which has already been replaced). I decided to try a few tests myself. I set up the new SSD as the Z drive, and I formatted it into non-default NTFS settings. This SSD is usually default formatted to 4K blocks, I tested it out by using 0.5K and 1K blocks instead. I then restored a previous backup of the filesystem to this drive, and tested out the backup and restore performance. Since this is not the production drive, it's not being accessed by any other processes like Thunderbird, so it's pristine and not a busy drive. I found that with both 0.5K and 1K blocks, the restore operation went very fast, about half an hour to get fully restored, which is a big improvement (previously used to take 1.5 hours to restore). Also the allocation slack was greatly improved, went from 1.4GB stored and 2.4GB allocated (42% slack), to 1.4GB stored and only 1.5GB allocated (7% slack). However, then I tried backing up the new drive and it still took over 8 hours! So writing to the drive is getting very fast, but reading off of it is still slow. Still the same number of files as before, over half-a-million. Yousuf Khan |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 4/28/2020 11:13 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
Yousuf Khan wrote: Yes, that is exactly the problem, I was getting at. Does Thunderbird have a new news file format available? My assumption was that Thunderbird only does 1 file/message? What's the option to convert? It's not a new News file format, it's a different format. New to me. LOL ;-) You set the format in the News account: Tools - Account settings - your news account in the left pane - 'Server Settings' page - Message Storage - Message Store Type:. This field *should* be set to 'File per folder (mbox)'. Yours is probably set to 'File per message (maildir)'. Actually it does show the "file per folder (mbox)" but it's completely grey-out, unchangeable. I assume that that's just it's preferred method of accessing News, but it's being forced to use the old format anyways. For your account - i.e. an *existing* account - you probably cannot change this setting, i.e. you can only set it when you create the account. Hence my comment about exporting and (re-)importing. If you cannot change the setting, you will have to export all the articles from your current account and then re-import all articles into a new account with 'Message Store Type: File per folder (mbox)'. Actually, I'm ready to completely blow out all of the files in the news folder, and redownload from scratch, just so long as my newsgroups list remains untouched. I obviously have backups of it, so it's not going to be harmful to me. If ImportExportTools can not solve your problem, you'll probably have to search the Thunderbird support site(s)/forum(s) or/and post there. [1] https://addons.thunderbird.net/en-GB/thunderbird/addon/importexporttools/?src=userprofile Thanks, but it looks like this version only works up to Thunderbird version 60, and I'm on version 68.x. No problem, this is just News, I'll just wipe it out and redownload. Yousuf Khan |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Why is this folder so slow?
On 4/28/2020 3:14 PM, Paul wrote:
The one I was looking at the other day, said that it didn't handle stuff in the News folder specifically. As for the availability of the MailboxStore option in the Server settings, the claim is that you must use this immediately when the installation of Thunderbird is brand new. In my experiments yesterday, I tried to "clean out" my profile, and tried not to leave any .msf files, then set the prefs.js with the maildirstore preference, and that *still* wasn't enough to make it work. I'm going to have to nuke the damn thing and start from scratch, to see if I can get it to work. One other weirdness from yesterdays experiment, is after I was finished with my failed experiment, I took the ZIP file holding my unbroken profile, and started to restore it to my SSD drive. I was greeted by write rates of arounf 2MB/sec on my SSD. It took forever to restore the fleet of .msf (file per box) style files. And when I opened Task Manager, MsMpEng was railed on one core, scanning everything being written into the profile area. I've done plenty of other stuff on the computer, where it doesn't do that with quite the same level of venom. (If I unpack an .ova on a scratch drive, it does that at several hundred megabytes per second. As if MsMpEng didn't care.) Â*Â* Paul Oh, it's a good thing I kept reading the replies, as it looks like you already tried what I was about to try. So it kept using the same file format as before, even after nuking it and starting from scratch? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|