On 04/07/2015 08:09 AM, Jeff Taylor wrote: > I've been running the modified slice code (three slice servers plus one > backup server) for the past couple years, and generally speaking it has > run perfectly. However every now and then I find that mailman is > suddenly not running on any of the servers, with no helpful information > showing in the log files. And it always comes down to discovering that > an update for mailman was released which overwrote the slice code that I > had added to mailmanctl.
I almost never apply local patches to a packaged software distribution. If I have a need to patch the code, I will generally install the software from source so that I have control over when and how it is upgraded and I don't have to worry that an automatic or semi-automatic software update will revert my changes. > This has been such a handy setup, I'm surprised that I haven't seen > comments from anyone else using the code. Surely I'm not the only one > running multiple mailman servers? As far as I know, there is no actual documented procedure/patch for doing this outside the archives of this list. > Anyway, I was wondering if there are any plans to ever make this a > permanent part of mailman? Since the QRUNNERS variable is only created > for this setup, it seems it would be an easy check to determine which > method a person is using, and run the appropriate code for each, so > there would be no impact on people running the single-server setup. The > same is true for the backup server -- a single variable is defined ONLY > on that machine, so the necessary code would only run if that variable > were present. Actually, the QRUNNERS list is defined in Defaults.py and used in every installation, and slicing of queues to be shared across multiple runners is a standard feature. Your changes address enabling the multiple runners to run on different machines. That only slightly complicates making this a general feature, but no, there are no plans to do so. As you note above, there has been very little interest in a feature like this expressed on this list. In fact, the threads beginning at <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2012-December/074537.html> and <https://mail.python.org/pipermail/mailman-users/2014-May/077068.html>, both initiated by you are the only things I recall on this subject in the last 7 years. There may be interest, but I haven't seen it so I haven't been motivated to do anything about it. Also, I'm not sure how many use cases there might be. I.e. you have N production servers plus a backup that only processes messages that haven't been picked up for a while by a production server. Will there be people who want similar load sharing with either zero or greater than one backup server. I.e., documenting the configuration options and actually configuring a particular installation is a more complex problem than patching the code. I suggest if you really want it, you submit it as a feature request at <https://bugs.launchpad.net/mailman/+filebug>, and tag it 'mailman3', as it's more likely to be implemented in MM 3 than in MM 2.1. -- Mark Sapiro <[email protected]> The highway is for gamblers, San Francisco Bay Area, California better use your sense - B. Dylan ------------------------------------------------------ Mailman-Users mailing list [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-users Mailman FAQ: http://wiki.list.org/x/AgA3 Security Policy: http://wiki.list.org/x/QIA9 Searchable Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/mailman-users%40python.org/ Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/mailman-users/archive%40jab.org
