New list - 50 times slower

Yesterday, on the Rails list, messages were taking on average 26 seconds to get from sender's ISP to my ISP. Out of half a dozen making up a thread, the fastest was 20 seconds and the slowest was 35 seconds.

Today, on rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com, the average of a sample of twelve messages is 22.25 minutes. The fastest was 11 minutes 42 seconds, the slowest was 57 minutes.

If I ask a question and someone answers "immediately", I shall see the reply about 45 minutes after asking the question. That's like having a radio conversation with someone on Mars, when Mars is at its furthest from the Earth.

I guess anyone who wants the old level of responsiveness will have to use the Web interface - but then I see that signing up for a Google Groups account involves agreeing to only use it for personal, non-commercial purposes. In my case, that wouldn't be entirely true.

(Does anyone know what the terms and conditions are for email users, signed up by someone else?)

regards

   Justin

Yesterday, on the Rails list, messages were taking on average 26 seconds
to get from sender's ISP to my ISP. Out of half a dozen making up a
thread, the fastest was 20 seconds and the slowest was 35 seconds.

Today, on rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com, the average of a sample of
twelve messages is 22.25 minutes. The fastest was 11 minutes 42 seconds,
the slowest was 57 minutes.

If I ask a question and someone answers "immediately", I shall see the
reply about 45 minutes after asking the question. That's like having a
radio conversation with someone on Mars, when Mars is at its furthest
from the Earth.

I guess anyone who wants the old level of responsiveness will have to
use the Web interface

i experienced the same delay. since i have a GMail account that i dont use, just so i can try out new google services, i subscribed to the rails list with it. then set up my gmail account to forward to my mailserver. interestingly, these messages arrived instantly (i mean even less than 22 seconds).

the only problem in this setup is, replies would be rejected, unless you subscribed twice, once with your real email address and once with the proxied gmail address just for quick delivery, and delivered the former's messages to /dev/null. anyone know a way aroudn that?

heh, yeah, I didn't agree to any terms and conditions when I was
signed up to this list, so I can do whatever the hell I want. :smiley:
-N

That's weird. If gmail is able to forward the emails really quickly,
but takes 50+ times the amount of time to display them, that surely is
something for the clever google people to look at. Unless I'm
misunderstanding what you're saying.
-N

thats correct. google groups has a seperate outgoing queue than gmail, and it is hugely lagged. if you use gmail, and forward from there, you bypass this queue. i like this list but not enough to figure how to make mutt fake the from: address only for lists that use google groups and hope that it gets by the spam filter after doing that, or setting up 2 subscriptions so i can both send and recieve fast. i'll just give it a week or so and if it still has queue issues, google proably doenst plan on fixing it...and i can unsubscribe in peace :slight_smile:

carmen wrote:

  

That's weird. If gmail is able to forward the emails really quickly,
but takes 50+ times the amount of time to display them, that surely is
something for the clever google people to look at. Unless I'm
misunderstanding what you're saying.
    
thats correct. google groups has a seperate outgoing queue than gmail, and it is hugely lagged. if you use gmail, and forward from there, you bypass this queue. i like this list but not enough to figure how to make mutt fake the from: address only for lists that use google groups and hope that it gets by the spam filter after doing that, or setting up 2 subscriptions so i can both send and recieve fast. i'll just give it a week or so and if it still has queue issues, google proably doenst plan on fixing it...and i can unsubscribe in peace :slight_smile:
  
So, does it make sense to do:
>list db:migrate VERSION=previous

Is it better than this move? I don't have a problem with it one way or the other though I did like the fact that I often received answers within minutes..

Cheers
Mohit.