Re: [Gossip] Re: Mhonarc problems at mail-archive.com

2001-11-11 Thread Jeff Breidenbach
>> I downgraded backed to mhonarc 2.4.9 to see if it would help with >> performance problems. > >>Was there a difference? I think so, although there were a lot of other things making the determination unclear. For starters: A near full filesystem, a runaway process consuming one of the CPU's, co

Re: [Gossip] fix problems day

2001-11-11 Thread Jeff Breidenbach
It turns out that a ton of lists are exhibiting the too-large-date index. All date indexes are now being rebuilt; the process will take a few hours. In the meantime all incoming mails are being added to the (already rather enormous) queue. The service has upgraded to mhonarc 2.5.0 again. Let's s

[Gossip] fix problems day

2001-11-11 Thread Jeff Breidenbach
Ok, today will be devoted to cleaning up these problems as best I can. Cheers, Jeff ___ Gossip mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jab.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gossip

Re: [Gossip] Re: Mhonarc problems at mail-archive.com

2001-11-11 Thread Earl Hood
On November 10, 2001 at 00:04, Jeff Breidenbach wrote: > >Version v2.5 avoids this problem since HEADER and FOOTER resources > >are no longer supported. > > I downgraded backed to mhonarc 2.4.9 to see if it would help with > performance problems. Was there a difference? > In fact, the time seq

[Gossip] Re: Mhonarc problems at mail-archive.com

2001-11-11 Thread Louis N Proyect
Earl, I am not sure what you mean by being at a loss. Perhaps I did not express myself clearly enough. This is not exactly a 'footer' problem in the technical sense of mhonarc parameters, I don't think. Instead it is a problem that I and others have run into. Basically, an index page (in this case

[Gossip] Re: Mhonarc problems at mail-archive.com

2001-11-11 Thread Earl Hood
On November 10, 2001 at 11:38, Louis N Proyect wrote: > Earl, I am not sure what you mean by being at a loss. Perhaps I did not > express myself clearly enough. This is not exactly a 'footer' problem in At a certain level, it is, even if you did not use HEADER and FOOTER since MHonArc processed

[Gossip] Re: Mhonarc problems at mail-archive.com

2001-11-11 Thread Louis N Proyect
Thanks, Earl. I only hope the guys at mail-archive.com (hiya!) can put 2.5 back in as soon as they straighten out some of the performance issues. I guess my other question is what would be the simplest way to re-build the date index after they do that (taking notes, fellows?). On Sat, 10 Nov 200

Re: [Gossip] Re: Mhonarc problems at mail-archive.com

2001-11-11 Thread Louis N Proyect
On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, Earl Hood wrote: > You can regen the index file by doing something like the following: > > mhonarc -editidx -nomsgpgs ... > I guess this answers the question in my last post. ___ Gossip mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] h