On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 22:51:43 -0800, "Vincent Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Bron Gondwana wrote:
> > Lucky we run reiserfs then, I guess...
> >
> >
>
> I suppose this is inappropriate topic-drift, but I wouldn't be
> too sanguine about Reiser. Considering the driving force behind
> it is in
Bron Gondwana wrote:
> Lucky we run reiserfs then, I guess...
>
>
I suppose this is inappropriate topic-drift, but I wouldn't be
too sanguine about Reiser. Considering the driving force behind
it is in a murder trial last I heard, I sure hope the good bits of that
filesystem get turned over to
On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:40:58 +1100, "Andrew McNamara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >> In production releases of ZFS fsync() essentially triggers sync() (fixed
> >> in
> >> Solaris Next).
> [...]
> >Skiplist requires two fsync calls per transaction (single
> >untransactioned actions are also one
>> In production releases of ZFS fsync() essentially triggers sync() (fixed in
>> Solaris Next).
[...]
>Skiplist requires two fsync calls per transaction (single
>untransactioned actions are also one transaction), and it
>also locks the entire file for the duration of said
>transaction, so you
Hi,
I'm currently using SendMail and Cyrus, but have hit two problems and
would greatly appreciate any help
1) The server needs to accept the mail for multiple domains and all
hosts on those domains.
eg [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 12:35:46PM -0500, Ken Murchison wrote:
> Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> >-- Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on
> >17. November 2007 11:21:38 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck
> >processes:
> >
> >>Here's a patch that seems to fix the pro
This does bring up an important point... we had to disable duplicate
suppression on our server because it was just causing too much contention.
When every single mail message being delivered has to check against the
database, it is a problem... especially in a cluster where multiple
servers are ru
On 19 Nov 2007, at 16:15, Dan White wrote:
> kaled (mupdate master and frontend):
> none, other than an mupdate_admins entry
If it's an mupdate master & frontend, you probably want the
mupdate_server configured, and mupdate_config: standard.
> Is xfermailbox valid in a standard murder?
Yes, yo
Wesley Craig wrote:
> I didn't look too hard at your other errors. Looking back now, I wonder
> how you have mupdate_config set? The kick_mupdate error you're getting
> isn't associated with the "standard" setting, tho it appears from your
> description that you are otherwise using a standard
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> -- Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on
> 19. November 2007 12:35:46 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck
> processes:
>
>> How are things looking today?
>
> Good! When I just checked I thought I'd found a new hanging pop3d
> proces
On 19 Nov 2007, at 12:57, Dan White wrote:
> Regarding the call to kick_mupdate and the attempt to open the file
> socket, could I be missing an entry in my cyrus.conf file?
When I saw your note included:
> Nov 17 09:25:02 neo cyrus/imap[11281]: decoding error: generic
> failure; SASL(-1): ge
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> -- Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on
> 19. November 2007 13:17:07 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck
> processes:
>
>> The only other potential downside
>>> the patch has is that stracing or gdb'ing it causes the timeout to
>>> t
-- Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on 19.
November 2007 13:17:07 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck
processes:
The only other potential downside
the patch has is that stracing or gdb'ing it causes the timeout to
trigger prematurely. AFAIK that's a common
-- Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on 19.
November 2007 12:35:46 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck
processes:
How are things looking today?
Good! When I just checked I thought I'd found a new hanging pop3d process,
because it's been around for 6 hours,
Dan White wrote:
> Dan White wrote:
>> Wesley Craig wrote:
>>> If I recall correctly, this is a bad interaction/bug between Cyrus IMAPd
>>> and Cyrus SASL. I see you're running IMAP 2.3.10. What version of SASL?
>>>
>> 2.1.22 from Debian etch with a couple of customizations to
>> ldapdb, which
Sebastian Hagedorn wrote:
> -- Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> is rumored to have mumbled on
> 17. November 2007 11:21:38 -0500 regarding Re: One more attempt: stuck
> processes:
>
>> Here's a patch that seems to fix the problem. I did some basic testing
>> (Linux only) to make sure that it d
On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 08:50:16AM +, Ian G Batten wrote:
>
> On 17 Nov 07, at 0909, Rob Mueller wrote:
>>
>> This shouldn't really be a problem. Yes the whole file is locked for the
>> duration of the write, however there should be only 1 fsync per
>> "transaction", which is what would introdu
On 17 Nov 07, at 0909, Rob Mueller wrote:
This shouldn't really be a problem. Yes the whole file is locked
for the
duration of the write, however there should be only 1 fsync per
"transaction", which is what would introduce any latency. The
actual writes
to the db file itself should be bas
18 matches
Mail list logo
