At 11:43 AM 10/5/2007, Tobias Kreidl wrote: >The issue of having the LIMIT set, period, instead of it being an option >is a concern. >If one ever gets behind, ti would appear that depending on the load, >you'd never catch up.
correct >Your point was that there are times where you might actually deal with >over 100,000 messages within an hour and >if that's sustained over a few hours, the cleanup will never catch up >(unless it's aware that it hit the limit and is started >up again). So, I agree with your concern about the LIMIT being >implicitly set and would suggest that this could perhaps at least be >overridden through a command line variable. Exactly. And in my case if there were sustained > 100000 messages per day (which is a very real possibility for many) it would never catch up. A command variable or config option would be a great solution if there is hesitation of removing it all-together. - Nate ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ policyd-users mailing list policyd-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/policyd-users
