On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:30:22 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> Wow. Looking into the BTS, I found bug #895089[1], changed "c_rehash"
> to "openssl rehash" in /usr/lib/postfix/configure-instance.sh as
> recommended there, and now "systemctl restart postfix.service"
> completes in two seconds!
A simila
On 21/01/2023 01:55, Charles Curley wrote:
root@white:~# ps aux | grep -i openssl
root 4586 5.8 0.9 8256 2064 pts/3S+ 11:48 0:00 grep
--colour=auto -i openssl
root 4587 150 2.1 4720 ?R11:48 0:00
/usr/bin/openssl x509 -subject_hash_old -fingerprint
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 21:30:22 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> Wow. Looking into the BTS, I found bug #895089[1], changed "c_rehash"
> to "openssl rehash" in /usr/lib/postfix/configure-instance.sh as
> recommended there, and now "systemctl restart postfix.service"
> completes in two seconds!
>
> Will
On 2023-01-20 21:11 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 20:45 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> My hunch is that postfix recomputes all the hashes in
>> /var/spool/postfix/etc/ssl/certs, rather than copying the files from the
>> host system into the chroot which would be a lot faster.
>
> For
Am Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 08:28:10PM +0100 schrieb Sven Joachim:
> On 2023-01-20 13:39 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 07:17:37PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
Hello Community,
> >> It seems that postfix's startup time has greatly regressed, on my laptop
> >> there are very
On 2023-01-20 20:45 +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2023-01-20 11:55 -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:17:37 +0100
>> Sven Joachim wrote:
>>
>>> Clearly something fishy is going on here.
>>
>> I concur. What I saw with htop was a slew of calls to SSL. Here's
>> a sample of
On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:37 AM Charles Curley
wrote:
>
> I upgraded an i386 machine from bullseye to bookworm. Postfix now
> refuses to run.
>
> root@white:/var/spool# systemctl start postfix@-.service
> Job for postfix@-.service failed because a timeout was exceeded.
> See "systemctl status pos
On 2023-01-20 11:55 -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:17:37 +0100
> Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> Clearly something fishy is going on here.
>
> I concur. What I saw with htop was a slew of calls to SSL. Here's
> a sample of what it was doing. It is a processor hog.
>
> root@white:~
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 14:28:22 -0500
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> More multiples of 30 seconds. I'm still thinking "DNS issue".
In this case, laziness. The default timeout is 60 seconds. I added 30
to that. Then doubled it. Etc. That doesn't mean you are wrong. I'd
like to know what that ssl command is
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 11:55:35AM -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> My previous timeout vale was 180 seconds, which wasn't enough. So my
> ancient anemic box needed between 180 and 360 seconds to start postfix.
> (But see below.)
More multiples of 30 seconds. I'm still thinking "DNS issue".
On 2023-01-20 13:39 -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 07:17:37PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> It seems that postfix's startup time has greatly regressed, on my laptop
>> there are very long delays both at boot:
>>
>> ,
>> | $ systemd-analyze blame | head -n1
>> | 33.340s p
On Fri, 20 Jan 2023 19:17:37 +0100
Sven Joachim wrote:
> Clearly something fishy is going on here.
I concur. What I saw with htop was a slew of calls to SSL. Here's
a sample of what it was doing. It is a processor hog.
root@white:~# ps aux | grep -i openssl
root 4586 5.8 0.9 8256 2064
On Fri, Jan 20, 2023 at 07:17:37PM +0100, Sven Joachim wrote:
> It seems that postfix's startup time has greatly regressed, on my laptop
> there are very long delays both at boot:
>
> ,
> | $ systemd-analyze blame | head -n1
> | 33.340s postfix@-.service
> `
A delay that's a multiple of 3
On 2023-01-20 09:34 -0700, Charles Curley wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:52:29 -0700
> Charles Curley wrote:
>
>> That suggests there's something wrong with
>> the way systemd is starting postfix. I will look into that later
>> today.
>
> Not quite "later today", but:
>
> A bit of thinking about
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:52:29 -0700
Charles Curley wrote:
> That suggests there's something wrong with
> the way systemd is starting postfix. I will look into that later
> today.
Not quite "later today", but:
A bit of thinking about it, and I realized that the computer in
question is an ancient
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 12:00:31 -0500
Dan Ritter wrote:
> Run the postfix executable by hand as root, and look for error
> messages and log entries in /var/log/mail.log among other locations.
Well, that was interesting. Thanks.
In mail.log I found the following from an earlier run:
2023-01-13T06
Charles Curley wrote:
> I upgraded an i386 machine from bullseye to bookworm. Postfix now
> refuses to run.
Run the postfix executable by hand as root, and look for error messages
and log entries in /var/log/mail.log among other locations.
-dsr-
I upgraded an i386 machine from bullseye to bookworm. Postfix now
refuses to run.
root@white:/var/spool# systemctl start postfix@-.service
Job for postfix@-.service failed because a timeout was exceeded.
See "systemctl status postfix@-.service" and "journalctl -xeu
postfix@-.service" for details
18 matches
Mail list logo
