I'd like to mention that there aren't any attachments in the messages that I am moving. So all the emails are no more than 10k or so. My disks are running 50% or more, free space. My boot drive is SSD and the mirrored drives are Sata.

One thing that could be an issue is that my mailbox is on the mirrored drive.

However, as an example, I can move 100Gb of files to the mirrored drive in about 10 to 15 minutes. Pegasus takes much longer to move much less although it is moving messages within the mirrored drive.

Occassionally I have a need to move hundreds of emails to another folder.

I noticed Pegasus was responsive for the first 140 odd emails but then Pegasus became unresponsive. If left for half an hour or so, it will come back to life having completed the move of the rest of the emails. Checking CPU usage, there doesn't seem to be any hangup.

What could cause Pegasus to "stall" when moving more than 140 odd emails at a time?

Thank you. 

I think it may be due to the rewriting of the index file (*.pmi). The main folder file (*.pmm) only adds messages to the end of a folder (appends). The insertion of message metadata into the target folder index probably causes the whole file to be re-indexed. While this can be achieved quite quickly if the whole index is held in memory, there have to be pauses while the index file catches up with the writing of the messages into the folder message collection.

Alternatively there could be a problem with basic file operation cache'ing, where disk space or dis-organization may be a factor. So check the disk space, and also check for disk fragmentation

HTH

Martin

I too have experienced extremely slow movement of messages from one folder to another.  A single message was taking from 5 seconds to many times that, with larger groups of messages (hundreds) taking hours, and appearing to freeze up Pegasus Mail.  This is on a PC running Win 7 Pro, with Pegasus Mail v4.72.  Used to see number of messages change during such a move at a rate of 10s per second or faster.  The laptop has an Intel i7 processor and a SSD drive, so should be fast, and defragmentation is not recommended.  So does anyone have other ideas?

Two things: Firstly, I have found that having the destination folder open can sometimes speed up moving messages between folders.

Secondly, regarding fragmentation: while it is not recommended to defrag SSD drives, there are technologies available that deal with the source of the fragmentation = the Windows file system. Diskeeper manages the I/O before the data is written to disk, resulting in better placement of data http://blog.condusiv.com/post/2016/11/17/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-about-SSDs-and-Fragmentation-in-5-Minutes.aspx 

You also should take into consideratin any attachments. You could have only 10 mails. But in case each mail has attachments of about 40 MB, the moving process can take a while.

We receive a lot of e-mails containing big attachments and my lovely users often don't comply with our policy to remove the attachment after saving it. And that's why moving of mails is a high time consumption process here.

Most interesting and worthwhile reference, Greenman.  The quality of thorough and thoughtful comment I would have expected from the guys at Winternals in the old days, or from Steve Gibson, perhaps. 

I was a long time user of Executive Software products, before they became Diskeeper Corporation, then eventually Condusiv Technologies.  

Although I do realize that they're the fashion trend, I myself am not a fan of SSDs, for multiple reasons.  For the last two newish ThinkPads I sourced, first order of business was to pull the SSD, stick it in a drawer, and replace it with a platter / spindle drive.  

Not as fast, granted, but then to quote Joel Cairo / Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon, " . . there is no hurry . . . ".  

At least not on the desktop.  

- CM-K

[quote user="Christopher Muñoz"]Most interesting and worthwhile reference, Greenman.  The quality of thorough and thoughtful comment I would have expected from the guys at Winternals in the old days, or from Steve Gibson, perhaps. 

I was a long time user of Executive Software products, before they became Diskeeper Corporation, then eventually Condusiv Technologies.  

Although I do realize that they're the fashion trend, I myself am not a fan of SSDs, for multiple reasons.  For the last two newish ThinkPads I sourced, first order of business was to pull the SSD, stick it in a drawer, and replace it with a platter / spindle drive.  

Not as fast, granted, but then to quote Joel Cairo / Peter Lorre in The Maltese Falcon, " . . there is no hurry . . . ".  

At least not on the desktop.  

- CM-K

[/quote]

I use a custom built gaming PC that has three drives. The system drive is an SSD. The others are traditional SATA drives which hold my data. My main qualm about SSD's is that there is a limit to the number of times that data can be written to the drive. Windows' built-in defragmentation procedure can help with the organisation of data but that still requires writing the same data to the disk multiple times. The beauty of Conduciv's software is that the majority of these extra writes are eliminated. I was lucky enough that when I was designing the system the company rep recommended that I not stick to SSD's throughout, as was my original intention - simply because the constant writing to disk from my data (gaming, music, video etc), would have reduced the disks' life.

Although I'm not a gamer, I do realize that your situation is quite different from mine.  

On the matter of the finite number of rewrites sustainable by an SSD, there's been a certain amount of pooh-poohing out there about how out on the street one never will see that limit reached.  

I don't find that credible.  

Still, parking the OS on an SSD, with everything else on one flavor of spindle / platter SATA or another, seems to work for quite a few users.  One of my disaffections with SSD derives from my preference to sub-partition a humongous C drive into one extended partition with two logical drives -- usually but not necessarily D & E -- while keeping some unallocated free space down the aisle at the end.  

Try this with an SSD and watch the grass grow.  Understood why this is the case, but there it is.  

One complication encountered on the road to retro configuration to a spindle drive, however, is that in a notebook / laptop -- I'm mostly a ThinkPad guy, here -- the non-existent SSD mounting system in the drive bay has to be reconfigured to a drive frame rail system if the platter drive is not to rattle around when the machine is moved.  Some of the system builders newer to the business don't seem to comprehend this, or else they want to stuff a piece of a 1970s necktie in there to shim it up.  "Heat transmission, say what - ?"   

So now I just do it myself.  

I always used to prefer SCSI -- again, in one flavor or another, including external drives -- for the desktop, instead of IDE/ATA and its progeny.  But it's become impractical now at its current price point.  

I may give the Condusiv product a whirl, even on a spindle drive, just as a junk scientific experiment.  

Thanks, Greenman, for your thoughtful response.  

- Muñoz-Keatts