[Mailman-Developers] Re: Slow Performance on semi-large lists
Thu, 14 Dec 2000 10:28:16 -0700 (MST)
One more thing...
>Actually, that's not true if the queue is reduced to containing only A,
>C, and D, and qrunner always times out on D; D will never get the same
>time as A and C. Leaving D at the head of the queue (that is,
>splitting the queue ahead of the current batch, rather than behind it)
>solves that problem until the case occurs in which D contains enough
>bad or slow addresses to stop the queue even though it's first. Two
>solutions to this: 1) never stop qrunner during the first queued batch
>(always wait for it to exit); or 2) split the queue ahead or behind of
>the current batch randomly.
I'm obviously not the exepert, but my observations indicate that qrunner
does complete the current message batch before checking to see if it's
exceeded the "QRUNNER_PROCESS_LIFETIME" value, so you could always set it
to the next message in the queue.
o o o o o o o . . . _______
o _____ _____ ____________________ ____] D D [_||___
._][__n__n___|DD[ [ \_____ | D.J. Atkinson | | firstname.lastname@example.org |
_/oo OOOO OOOO oo` 'ooooo ooooo` 'o!o o!o` 'o!o o!o`
Visit my web page at http://www.pcisys.net/~dj