Tickets :: Comment on [#12705] Rate limit polling for new mail notifications

* Your Email Address
* Spam protection	Enter the letters below: . .___.___..__ .__ \| [__ \| \| \[__) \|___\| \| \|__/\| \
Comment	>>> In my IMAP account, I have a fair number of folders that need to be >>> polled for new messages (about 25) as I use Sieve to sort messages >>> upon arrival. This means checking for new messages is a relatively >>> expensive operation. >> >> What does Sieve have to do with this? Sieve is independent of polling. > > I tried to provide some context why I'm polling this many mailboxes. > Most of my users don't use filters at all, in which case they are > only subscribed to the INBOX and this doesn't seem to be a problem. > >>> When 'Display notification when new mail arrives?' in the Mail >>> preferences is selected, it looks like this check is performed for >>> each POST request. This means that if multiple POST requests are send >>> more or less simultaneously, this check is run many times in >>> parallel. For instance, if in a month view of Kronolith I move to the >>> next month, 13 POST requests are fired off within a few milliseconds >>> (in my agenda there are six calenders, five address books, one >>> tasklist and one holidays). Each of these will run >>> >>> horde/services/ajax.php/kronolith/listEvents >> >> That shouldn't happen. For a task such as this in kronolith, we >> should really be pooling all of these into a single request. But >> that's a separate enhancement ticket... > > Will this be tracked in this ticket or do I need to create an additional one? > >>> All in all this takes approximately 10 seconds, during which time the >>> check for new messages runs 13 times (pretty much in parallel). If I >>> disable the new mail notifications, the same action takes less than 2 >>> seconds (I made sure these aren't cached results). >>> >>> It would be nice if there was a preference that would allow to >>> prevent polling for new messages if less than 'X' seconds have passed >>> since the last poll was started. This would prevent running polls in >>> parallel, fighting for attention from Dovecot and which in the end is >>> just a waste of resources. >> >> We should probably just use the "refresh" interval that currently exists. > > Suits me fine. > >> This seems a reasonable feature to put into 6.2. > > Great!
Attachment
Watch this ticket

Saved Queries