On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 09:09:38PM +0100, Mike Crowe wrote:
I've discovered the cause of the CPU usage problem. I had ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX
set to the default of 2. It appears that the archiver eats an awful lot of
processor power - so much that the backlog caused by the earlier bug was
taking ages
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 09:09:38PM +0100, Mike Crowe wrote:
I've discovered the cause of the CPU usage problem. I had ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX
set to the default of 2. It appears that the archiver eats an awful lot of
processor power - so much that the backlog caused by the earlier bug was
taking ages
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:14:44AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote:
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 09:09:38PM +0100, Mike Crowe wrote:
[stuff about the archiver being slow]
Yep, this is known, I've had the same problem on several servers,
including sourceforge.net, which only has 2G of memory a dual
On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 11:24:29AM +0100, I wrote:
In any case, if the MTA was the problem I wouldn't have expected the
qrunner process to be using lots of CPU - surely it would just be blocked
consuming nothing?
I've done some further investigation myself by inserting syslog statements
deep
Continuing the bad netiquette of replying to myself...
On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 12:25:53PM +0100, I wrote:
I hope my understanding of this problem is correct and the above
information is useful. I don't think I've got to the bottom of the CPU
usage problem, but this was certainly part of it.
On Tue, Apr 24, 2001 at 08:29:35AM -0700, Steve Pirk wrote:
I would do some tests on basic mail... Telent to the box on port 25
and see how long it is before you get the greeting. Do the smae on the
box to an outside machine. Both should be *very* fast. If they are
not, look into reverse
On 23 March 2001, Bill Bradford wrote:
Upgraded to Python 2.0 this morning, and recompiled/reinstalled
mailman 2.0.3 along with it (had already been running this version,
but I figure recompiling/installing it along with the new python
wouldnt hurt). I started getting a lot *more* of these
