--On Monday, July 28, 2003 10:26 AM -0400 Ken Murchison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Rob Siemborski wrote:
However, in Scott's case, he's not renaming the user, he's just moving it
between partitions. I don't think we should be iterating across the list
to fix the username in this case (so we shou
Rob Siemborski wrote:
>
However, in Scott's case, he's not renaming the user, he's just moving it
between partitions. I don't think we should be iterating across the list
to fix the username in this case (so we should fix this ;)...
Scott,
Try this (untested) patch which I just applied to CVS:
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Andrew McNamara wrote:
> This sounds like the same problem I complained about on the list in
> the thread, subject "Very slow deletion of user mailboxes?", posted 9th
> July. I haven't had a chance to investigate further.
>
> http://asg.web.cmu.edu/archive/message.php?mail
>Thanks for the info... I switched over to using flock() and I can confirm
>that it is now being used instead of fnctl(). The problem is that I still
>see the same problem as before with regards to over 16500 instances of the
>following:
>
>stat("/var/imap/mailboxes.db", 0x00011FFF9C98) =
Thanks for the info... I switched over to using flock() and I can confirm
that it is now being used instead of fnctl(). The problem is that I still
see the same problem as before with regards to over 16500 instances of the
following:
stat("/var/imap/mailboxes.db", 0x00011FFF9C98) = 0
flo
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[...]
No, fcntl is not the default. I'll have to look at the documentation.
--with-lock=flock should fix this for you though if it makes a difference.
Except that it has been since 2.1.7:
> Change d
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Lawrence Greenfield wrote:
>Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Rob Siemborski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [...]
>No, fcntl is not the default. I'll have to look at the documentation.
>
>--with-lock=flock should fix this for you though if it makes a d
On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Scott Adkins wrote:
> In version 2.0.16, flock() was being used for file locking. However, in
> 2.2.1, I am wondering if this is still the case. I looked in the configure
> output of 2.0.16 and it detects the flock() function call, but in the output
> of 2.2.1, it doesn't ev
In version 2.0.16, flock() was being used for file locking. However, in
2.2.1, I am wondering if this is still the case. I looked in the configure
output of 2.0.16 and it detects the flock() function call, but in the output
of 2.2.1, it doesn't even look like it checks for flock(). Has the defau
