Can Outlook be made to poll sequentially?

[Vanguard]

Outlook 2002 SP-3
Windows XP Pro SP-2

I would like to find out if Outlook can be made to poll sequentially. I
don't mean in a specific order but where Outlook polls only one e-mail
account at a time. I've noticed now with a couple different providers
that I will start having difficulties getting authenticated into my
accounts once I start having multiple accounts with them. It could be
they are checking for how many concurrent connections there are from one
IP address and limiting that number. For some polls, all accounts are
accessed okay. Sometimes one account will fail on the authenticate, and
it changes as to which account will fail. If I could get Outlook to
poll only one account at a time (like it used to) then maybe it wouldn't
fail.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Outlook 2002 SP-3
Windows XP Pro SP-2

I would like to find out if Outlook can be made to poll sequentially.
I don't mean in a specific order but where Outlook polls only one
e-mail account at a time.

Put each account in its own send/receive group, possibly giving each group a
slightly different polling interval.

 

[Vanguard]

Put each account in its own send/receive group, possibly giving each
group a slightly different polling interval.

I don't leave Outlook running continuously. There is no point in
wasting memory and CPU cycles on an application which is used only
occasionally during the day. When you load Outlook, all accounts will
get polled on the first (zeroeth) interval. So even if I set them to
poll at slightly different intervals, they still screw up on the first
poll which is probably the only one that will occur since I'll load
Outlook, check for e-mails, reply to some, and exit Outlook.

 

[Brian Tillman]

I don't leave Outlook running continuously. There is no point in
wasting memory and CPU cycles on an application which is used only
occasionally during the day.

If your CPU isn't being used for one thing, it will be used for another.
CPUs do NOT "sit idle", ever. They MUST be executing something at all
times, whether it be Outlook ot the idle process. You might was well use
those cycles for something useful. In fact, a well-tuned computer will
always be executing a useful program, its CPU being 100% utilized every
moment. What you don't want is a compute queue; i.e., computable processes
that cannot execute because the CPU is busy on another process. Tuning
involves finding that balance between a CPU not performing useful work and a
compiute queue longer than one process. Outlook (or any program), when
active but awaiting I/O (yours or the send/receive or the autocompaction
or...) or active but not otherwise computable, does not impose any load
whatsoever on the CPU. The CPU will have been scheduled for another
process, since the CPU MUST always be executing something.

When you load Outlook, all accounts will
get polled on the first (zeroeth) interval. So even if I set them to
poll at slightly different intervals, they still screw up on the first
poll which is probably the only one that will occur since I'll load
Outlook, check for e-mails, reply to some, and exit Outlook.

You're not using your computer properly if you constantly initiate and then
terminate processes. It's a fairly "expensive" process for the image
activator to load a program from disk into memory, getting it ready to run
and then to tear down the process when it's finished. That's one of the
reasons you have virtual memory (supported by adequate physical memory, of
course). You can have many processes active in memory, ready for scheduling
when the CPU is available and not incur the I/O and CPU overhead of loading
the image from disk and making it available for scheduling. If the CPU is
busy with that operation, it can't do any useful work.

 

[Vanguard]

If your CPU isn't being used for one thing, it will be used for
another. CPUs do NOT "sit idle", ever. They MUST be executing
something at all times, whether it be Outlook ot the idle process.
You might was well use those cycles for something useful.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have far better uses for my CPU cycles than waste
them with Outlook. Outlook loaded in memory does NOT mean it sits there
idle. It consumes memory. Poof, that memory is gone for use by other
applications which means I thrash more swapping pages in and out of
virtual memory (i.e., the pagefile on the slow hard drive). Yes, I
could add more memory, but I already do that by not wasting it on
processes that don't need to be running. By the way, I run multiple
WinRunner sessions for QA testing and my CPU is already loaded enough.

You're not using your computer properly if you constantly initiate and
then terminate processes.

Yes, I am. I allocate the limited and fixed resources to whatever
processes have priority. Those that don't have priority, either get it
lowered or they are unloaded if unneeded at the time. You running your
home computer and playing games is not the equivalent of my setup, so
don't be impugning my choice to unload unnecessary processes when I need
those resources for something else. You have your way of operating your
*home* PC. I have my needs for running a test host which doubles as a
desktop/workstation. If you would like me to have a desktop which is
geared towards fluffy end-user activities then, sure, sends us the money
to buy some more hosts.

It's a fairly "expensive" process for the image

activator to load a program from disk into memory, getting it ready to
run and then to tear down the process when it's finished. That's one
of the reasons you have virtual memory (supported by adequate physical
memory, of course). You can have many processes active in memory,
ready for scheduling when the CPU is available and not incur the I/O
and CPU overhead of loading the image from disk and making it
available for scheduling. If the CPU is busy with that operation, it
can't do any useful work.

Real memory is still fixed. That means more processes means more
thrashing and definite degradation of your system's performance. We
need to get our work done. A bit of that means being responsive to
inter-departmental e-mails, but our big job is to complete the execution
of the automated testing of our applications. You can argue all you
want over how an ideal computer should operate. We need to run the
primary jobs in real memory so they complete on schedule.

At the times that I load Outlook to check for e-mail and unload it is
when a job has completed and I can temporarily usurp the REAL memory for
some other applications, like e-mail, but I only get small windows of
opportunity during the day. Changing priority helps but not if the
application has to wait for its page from the hard disk since even
low-priority jobs get some time. The system becomes too locked out if
we run the high-priority jobs in real-time mode (we couldn't even use
Windows Explorer to look into the results files to monitor how far we
have progressed through testing).

 

[Brian Tillman]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I have far better uses for my CPU cycles than waste
them with Outlook. Outlook loaded in memory does NOT mean it sits
there idle. It consumes memory. Poof, that memory is gone for use
by other applications which means I thrash more swapping pages in and
out of virtual memory (i.e., the pagefile on the slow hard drive).

If another process needs the memory, Outlook will be paged out and not
consume physical memory. It will only be paged in if it becomes computable.

Yes, I am. I allocate the limited and fixed resources to whatever
processes have priority. Those that don't have priority, either get
it lowered or they are unloaded if unneeded at the time. You running
your home computer and playing games is not the equivalent of my
setup, so don't be impugning my choice to unload unnecessary
processes when I need those resources for something else.

Your crystal ball is broken. I wasn't referring to a home computer playing
games. I'm talking about procedures anyone who knows how computers work
knows to be true no matter what applications are running.

You have
your way of operating your *home* PC.

What makes you think I'm referring to a home PC? And even if I were, the
concepts are the same. Home PCs and PCs used for graphics design in
high-end applications like those used at Pixar all follow the same rules.
It's clear you don't understand how computers work.

Real memory is still fixed. That means more processes means more
thrashing and definite degradation of your system's performance.

Not necessarily.

We
need to get our work done. A bit of that means being responsive to
inter-departmental e-mails, but our big job is to complete the
execution of the automated testing of our applications. You can
argue all you want over how an ideal computer should operate. We
need to run the primary jobs in real memory so they complete on
schedule.

And the processes that require the CPU the most WILL be in real memeory most
of the time. If you don't realize that, you don't know how computers work.

 

[Brian Tillman]

If another process needs the memory, Outlook will be paged out and not
consume physical memory. It will only be paged in if it becomes
computable.

Look. I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, so I'll just let
someone else weigh in if they so choose.

 

[Vanguard]

Look. I don't want to get in a pissing match with you, so I'll just
let someone else weigh in if they so choose.

The real problem is that you never addressed the question and instead
chose to proselytize your concept of how the dispatcher should work for
idle processes and that paging never occurs unless there is user input
to the GUI.

The other problem with having Outlook always loaded is it non-compliance
with the options. I have Outlook configured to NOT show the progress
dialog when it polls for e-mail. Yet when there is an error, Outlook
still demands on presenting its dialog window.

 

[Brian Tillman]

The real problem is that you never addressed the question and instead
chose to proselytize your concept of how the dispatcher should work
for idle processes and that paging never occurs unless there is user
input to the GUI.

Quote the portion of my message where I said that.

The other problem with having Outlook always loaded is it
non-compliance with the options. I have Outlook configured to NOT
show the progress dialog when it polls for e-mail. Yet when there is
an error, Outlook still demands on presenting its dialog window.

Which has nothing to do with taking up memory.

 

[Vanguard]

Which has nothing to do with taking up memory.

Which [all the discussion regarding memory] had nothing to do with answering
the question of whether or not Outlook could be configured or forced to
sequentially poll its accounts. I realize your first response to use
staggered poll times would work *if* Outlook were to be left resident (and
ignoring the concurrent poll of all accounts for the first or zeroeth poll)
but that's not a choice. By your reply of using staggered poll times and
digression into memory utilitization, I have to conclude that you believe
that Outlook cannot be made to perform sequential polling of accounts.

Outlook will not be left resident (regardless of arguments regarding memory
utilitization, pagefile, and page faults). Even if left resident, its
insistence on presenting the progress dialog for errors will interfere with
the results of application GUI tests. By making Outlook poll sequentially,
perhaps the errors would not occur so the progress window would not appear
atop other windows and steal focus. But I only would need sequential
polling simply because Outlook does not comply with its option to NOT
display its progress windows - even when there are errors. If Outlook
obeyed that option so its progress window was never displayed whether
errorfree or not, I really wouldn't care if Outlook polled sequentially or
concurrently. The polling error only occurs sometimes and fluctuates as to
which account failed, so eventually all the accounts get polled anyway. I
was really trying to eliminate that damn progress window from appearing
under any condition. I am using Outlook 2002, so maybe Outlook 2003
actually obeys that setting.

Thanks for the help, anyway. Doesn't look like it is doable to leave
Outlook resident since I cannot eliminate the progress window appearing when
there is an error during concurrent mail polls of multiple SMTP accounts.
I'll continue to rely on Magic Mail Monitor to check for new mails.

 

[jeff]

Who honestly gives a rat's bum, do what you want it's your stupid computer
and noone else really cares.
There, since Tillman wasn't wanting to come right out and say it I thought I
would.

Which has nothing to do with taking up memory.

Which [all the discussion regarding memory] had nothing to do with
answering the question of whether or not Outlook could be configured or
forced to sequentially poll its accounts. I realize your first response
to use staggered poll times would work *if* Outlook were to be left
resident (and ignoring the concurrent poll of all accounts for the first
or zeroeth poll) but that's not a choice. By your reply of using
staggered poll times and digression into memory utilitization, I have to
conclude that you believe that Outlook cannot be made to perform
sequential polling of accounts.

Outlook will not be left resident (regardless of arguments regarding
memory utilitization, pagefile, and page faults). Even if left resident,
its insistence on presenting the progress dialog for errors will interfere
with the results of application GUI tests. By making Outlook poll
sequentially, perhaps the errors would not occur so the progress window
would not appear atop other windows and steal focus. But I only would
need sequential polling simply because Outlook does not comply with its
option to NOT display its progress windows - even when there are errors.
If Outlook obeyed that option so its progress window was never displayed
whether errorfree or not, I really wouldn't care if Outlook polled
sequentially or concurrently. The polling error only occurs sometimes and
fluctuates as to which account failed, so eventually all the accounts get
polled anyway. I was really trying to eliminate that damn progress window
from appearing under any condition. I am using Outlook 2002, so maybe
Outlook 2003 actually obeys that setting.

Thanks for the help, anyway. Doesn't look like it is doable to leave
Outlook resident since I cannot eliminate the progress window appearing
when there is an error during concurrent mail polls of multiple SMTP
accounts. I'll continue to rely on Magic Mail Monitor to check for new
mails.

 

[Brian Tillman]

Who honestly gives a rat's bum, do what you want it's your stupid
computer and noone else really cares.
There, since Tillman wasn't wanting to come right out and say it I
thought I would.

That's certainly not what I'd say. Vanguard's complaint that Outlook
doesn't obey a setting is certainly legitimate.

 

[Vanguard]

Wrong. Not my computer. It's my company's computer. I can go to another
desktop to read e-mail but then I am away from the testing host and
obviously cannot monitor the execution of the scripted application testing.