On Mon, 2 May 2005, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
But while that *works* I'm still failing to see how having it
fail when set to 3 can be considered anything other than a bug
and therefore worth addressing.
It's the difference between a bugfix and workaround.
The bug is that you can prefork mupdate 3 tim
Derrick J Brashear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It's not even worth addressing the issue unless it happens when you
> start a single mupdate. Does it?
Anyway, it does seem to be working with a prefork of 1
But while that *works* I'm still failing to see how having it
fail when set to 3 can be c
On Thu, 28 Apr 2005, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
mupdate is self-forking. Start just one.
A reasonable suggestion, which does absolutely nothing to address
the issue of *why* such a behavior would happen.
It's not even worth addressing the issue u
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> mupdate is self-forking. Start just one.
A reasonable suggestion, which does absolutely nothing to address
the issue of *why* such a behavior would happen.
Darrell
---
Cyrus Home Page: http://asg.web.cmu.edu/cyrus
Cyrus Wiki/FAQ: http:/
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Darrell Fuhriman wrote:
> In cyrus.conf on the frontend we have:
> mupdate cmd="mupdate" listen=3905 prefork=3
>
> and on the mupdate master, we have:
> MUPDATE cmd="mupdate -m" listen=3905 prefork=3
mupdate is self-forking. Start just one.
--
"One disk to rul
We are currently working on migrating our UW servers to Cyrus. We
currently have one each mupdate master, frontend, and backend.
We're migrating users using a slightly modified version of the
imapsync script.
What we're seeing is that sometimes, a user's mailbox is not
properly propagated to the
