Webmail too slow
Problem reported by Manuel Martins - May 29, 2017 at 1:24 AM
Being Fixed
Hi,
I upgraded from SmarterMail 15 to 16 and now webmail runs too slow, it was very fast on 15 but now it's not, when i change to another folder, make a search, almost all operations are much slower.
Thanks

10 Replies

Reply to Thread
0
There have been other threads where the SM team commented that after an upgrade to v16 there's a bunch of background processing happening with the mailboxes that might take some time to complete.  That's why we scheduled our upgrade for 8pm Sunday night (last night).  Hopefully by this morning (Monday) all that background processing is done.
 
In any case - for any of the people who had slowness in the webmail in the past couple weeks - has the slowness gone away with time or is it still slow?
 
We might poll our users as well to find out, but if the slowness is already a known issue we won't bother.
 
1
Our customers have been complaining non-stop about how slow the new webmail interface is too.
 
Although it does seem the slowdown lies in initial load times that are entirely dependent upon the number of objects it has to index and paginate, once a folder is populated it does seem faster than the previous interface v15 and prior (granted "seems" is a relative word).
 
So we put it to the test and it did become clear that not all web browsers are created equal, especially in concerns with the new webmail interface. Some seem to handle AngularJS & CSS3 better than others. We tested on the same machine, same email account on the latest version of 8 different browsers and this is what we got:
 
Web Browser Time To Load Rank
Vivaldi 713 ms 1
Google Chrome 920 ms 2
Brave 947 ms 3
Opera 979 ms 4
Mozilla Firefox (Linux) 1.93 sec 5
Safari (Mac) 2.38 sec 6
Microsoft Edge 5.93 sec 7
Mozilla Firefox (Win) 7.11 sec 8
 
For the new Smartermail interface having a modal page loading in 1.93 and 2.38 sec on Firefox (Linux) & Safari (Mac) it is definitely acceptable as that puts it into the Top 50% of fastest websites in 2017, and with Vivaldi it puts it at the Top 6% of websites, with all others but Edge and Firefox on Windows being in the Top 25% for speed, which is definitely a lot faster than the previous version all the way across the board. With Microsoft Edge and Mozilla Firefox on Windows the performance truly is abysmal compared to the old Smartermail webmail interface. (Remember, Firefox for Windows is still 32-bit and single-threaded which may account for the difference, especially when compared to Firefox for Linux which is 64-bit and multi-threaded.)
 
(Note: I didn't include Mobile Browsers as there would be too many variables causing them to be like comparing apples to oranges except when compared to those on the same OS on the same device...and besides I couldn't figure out how to enable DevTools on most Mobile Browsers.)
 
TBH, I can live with slower speeds initially as the priority at this point s/b quashing bugs as quickly as possible. I know performance is something that comes in time with optimization. I remember the switch from v7 to v8 in Smartermail, where even though the interface looked the same performance took a significant hit for several months before it was optimized better.
1
Tim Uzzanti Replied
Employee Post
In another thread in the community which was discussing load times... lead me to requesting another round of speed testing from our QC team.  We have a VERY extensive matrix of 25 different areas in the web application that is being tested with a number of browsers.  These tests are done with many gigabyte mailboxes and significant calendars, contacts etc.  I have seen some of the results and there are a couple areas of concern.  Data is still being compiled.
 
 
Tim Uzzanti
CEO
SmarterTools Inc.
(877) 357-6278
www.smartertools.com
2
We are facing the same issue on our 2000+ Enterprise servers. After upgrading to SM16 the overall performance of webmail have reducing tremendously. The slowness is so much that we are forced to stop the upgrades and stick with 15.x which seems much stable that current SM16
 
The slowness have been sighted at freshly installed SM16 which is worrying for this smartermail product.
1
What we are experiencing is some customers have long initial load times 1-2 minutes for the login screen.  Then, once they are logged in, all works fast and well.
0
Has the slowness issue been fixed?
1
Tim Uzzanti Replied
Employee Post
We keep making incremental improvements with every minor release and why we have been doing them weekly.
 
Were going to publish an assessment of v15 and v16 (including minors) to show the improvements. 
 
When you install a new version of SmarterMail, new files will be downloaded.  After that, they are cached.  There was an issue on the original 16.x release that had an issue with caching.
 
We are still trying to figure out what is causing Firefox to be slow.  Were showing no CPU and were seeing no Bandwidth being used but Firefox just sits there dumbfounded.  Its random and difficult to diagnose.
 
Hope this helps,
Tim Uzzanti
CEO
SmarterTools Inc.
(877) 357-6278
www.smartertools.com
4
please, when you release update that it resolve the speed issue, like you, we have costumers that we have to answer them why it happens and when it get better!
and what is your plan to solve it?
3
So, what's the deal here?
 
This thread hasn't been commented upon in forever.
 
We're still running v.15 but I've been experimenting with v.16 on a test server and webmail is still DOG SLOW particularly when loading for the first time.
 
I just upgraded to 16.3.6614 and I'm still seeing the same issues.
 
Is this SUPPOSED to be fixed and if not, is it GOING to be fixed before v.17 is released?
 
As it stands, there is NO WAY I'm going to upgrade . v.16 with these issues. 
 
Are there any IIS optimizations people can recommend or is this something that can't be resolved without an update?
0
We are running v16 from november 2017 and there's no compliant with webmail speed...
 
For us and our customers, opening an email or browsing through folders using webmail is almost instantaneous...

Reply to Thread