Scott
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, parti
At 12:52 AM + 2003/11/01, Richard Barrett wrote:
Rather than just theorize, feel free to make specific suggestions
about the deficiencies and appropriate remedies based on the code
being executed. Dare I say it, you could even submit a patch to
fix any obvious errors in the code.
I have s
At 9:29 PM -0500 2003/10/31, Scott Lambert wrote:
If we were talking about more than 10,000 files, I might buy it. But we
are talking about 1300 files.
Many filesystems start significantly slowing down around 1,000
files, not 10,000. Moreover, are you sure that this is the largest
number of
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 21:29, Scott Lambert wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:59:24AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> > At 6:21 PM -0500 2003/10/31, Scott Lambert wrote:
> > > I haven't looked at the code yet, and probably won't (ENOTIME), but
> > > it almost sounds to me like it's not pruning it's l
On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 12:59:24AM +0100, Brad Knowles wrote:
> At 6:21 PM -0500 2003/10/31, Scott Lambert wrote:
> > I haven't looked at the code yet, and probably won't (ENOTIME), but
> > it almost sounds to me like it's not pruning it's list of handled
> > messages and has to walk all of them ea
On Friday, October 31, 2003, at 11:59 pm, Brad Knowles wrote:
At 6:21 PM -0500 2003/10/31, Scott Lambert wrote:
I haven't looked at the code yet, and probably won't (ENOTIME), but
it
almost sounds to me like it's not pruning it's list of handled
messages
and has to walk all of them each t
At 6:21 PM -0500 2003/10/31, Scott Lambert wrote:
I haven't looked at the code yet, and probably won't (ENOTIME), but it
almost sounds to me like it's not pruning it's list of handled messages
and has to walk all of them each time. I would have expected queue
handling to get faster as the que
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:52:34PM -0500, Scott Lambert wrote:
> 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.
Well, the above statement is not entirely accurate. It was working
qu
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. MTA
is sendmail 8.12.8p1
Very frequently I will see the
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. MTA
> > is sendmail 8.12.8p1
> >
> > Very frequently I will see the ArchRunner process using 99+ % of cpu. I have
>
Well you've pegged it. That was a bug in version 2.1.2 which is fixed
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).
Good Luck - Jon Carnes
On Fri, 2003-10-31 at 09:26,
11 matches
Mail list logo
