Further to my earlier post on this topic, I have taken a look at the pipermail archiver code.
I concluded that there is a bug (or is it a feature?) which bloats the size of the -article file in the pipermail "database" for each list. This bloat will affect archiving performance, particularly for list with large amounts of traffic and/or those that have large text postings to them.
I think the bug has been around for a number of releases and it would explain why I had previously found shortening the archive period improved matters.
This may or may not be part of the problem you reported. I have posted a patch to correct this problem here which you might like to try if you are feeling particularly brave:
http://www.openinfo.co.uk/mailman/patches/835332/index.html
and here:
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/ ?func=detail&aid=835332&group_id=103&atid=100103
Feedback either +ve or -ve would be appreciated if you try the patch.
Richard
On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 08:52 pm, Scott Lambert wrote:
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 09:40:11AM -0500, Jon Carnes wrote:On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 09:26, Jay West wrote:I'm using Mailman 2.1.2 on FreeBSD v4.8-Release, built using the port. MTAWell you've pegged it. That was a bug in version 2.1.2 which is fixed
is sendmail 8.12.8p1
Very frequently I will see the ArchRunner process using 99+ % of cpu. I have
searched the archives and found lots of messages about qrunners using large
percentages of cpu, but they all seem to talk about the fixes being related
to actual mail processing (sendmail), not archRunner. I am assuming that if
the problem was mail delivery or reception I would be seeing the large cpu
use on a different qrunner process. My issue is specific to the archrunner
process which I don't find much on in the archives/faq.
in 2.1.3. The patch for 2.1.2 should still be available - you could
probably patch your running system and just leave it at that (an upgrade
will bring the patch in anyway).
I still see this problem with Mailman 2.1.3 for a high-volume list.
PID USERNAME PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU CPU COMMAND
66428 mailman 64 0 168M 147M CPU1 0 376.7H 99.02% 99.02% python2.3
That's the archiver process. There are 1318 messages in the archive queue...
12:00:28 Fri Oct 31 # truss -p 66428 break(0x114f6000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x1302c000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x114f8000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x13030000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x114fa000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x13034000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x114fc000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x13038000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x114fe000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x1303c000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x11500000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x13040000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x11502000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x13044000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x11504000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x13048000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x11506000) = 0 (0x0) break(0x1304c000) = 0 (0x0)
Once I kill off the mailman queue runners and clean up the several lock files for this mailing list, it runs just fine and manages to empty the archive queue.
Two days worth of mailman cron jobs were still stuck in the process list.
Supposition: Maybe they were blocked by the list's lockfile?
So, it seems that the archRunner process went off the deep end somewhere
between two and three days ago.
I have the htdig patches for 2.1.3 installed. Which might be germane...
--
Scott Lambert KC5MLE Unix SysAdmin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Barrett http://www.openinfo.co.uk
------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://www.python.org/cgi-bin/faqw-mm.py Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/
This message was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe or change your options at http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
