[Mailman-Users] Problem with qrunner and too much incoming mail
Chuq Von Rospach
chuqui at plaidworks.com
Fri Nov 3 21:24:47 CET 2000
At 11:35 AM -0800 11/3/00, Marc MERLIN wrote:
>We're currently playing with MTAs to optimize this a bit, but the real fix
>is on the mailing list side.
what's your MTA? Sendmail? postfix?
>- Forget about qrunner and switch back to direct delivery and queueing only
> when direct delivery fails.
the other problem with this is peak load problems. Instead of getting
nailed by a backlogged, you get nailed by trying to delivery all at
once and having your system croak. You need some way to manage
delivery to keep the peaks from killing you.
>- Remove the locking in qrunner, run more than one qrunner at once, and hope
> for the best ;-)
you definitely don't want that. Definitely.
>- Have a multithreaded qrunner that processes 10 or 20 mails at once
> (talking to 10 or 20 instances of the MTa in parrallel)
something I was going to bring up -- since I'm now running Mailman on
a 2CPU system, it'd be nice to be able to run multiple qrunners. But
it actually has some fairly serious implications in the locking areas
as well, so it doesn't seem to be an easy fix. It's certainly not
something I'd try to load into the 2.0 timeframe, not if we're RC
I think it's a combination of factors .The quick fix is tweaking the
MTA to be less sensitive. On my big server (50+ lists, 40,000+
subscribers) I simply haven't see more than a couple of hour delay,
and that was only on the day when all of the "we've migrated to the
new server" messages that went to everyone on every list at the same
time started coming back in as MTA timeouts from the queue. to be
really honest -- I wonder if the machine you're running this on is
udnerpowered or misconfigured in some way, but I'd go beating on the
I agree that multiple qrunners would be nice, but I don't think it's
a quick fix thing, but a 2.1 thing.
>Now, if I have X machines that mount /var/local/mailman, they'd be able to
>service all the lists (config.db would get locked correctly), but I'd still
>be stuck with only one queue runner because of the global lock.
>That said, I *could* have mailman/data and mailman/qfiles be a symlink to
>somewhere on the local disk, and patch qrunner to put its lock in data.
>This would allow for independant queue runners, but shared list configs and
>shared locks on the list configs themselves.
>Would that work?
I'm glad I'm not trying that on MY machine. I wish you luck...
Chuq Von Rospach - Plaidworks Consulting (mailto:chuqui at plaidworks.com)
Apple Mail List Gnome (mailto:chuq at apple.com)
Be just, and fear not.
More information about the Mailman-Users