Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: "could not acquire qrunner lock", etc (partially solved)

2001-05-02 Thread Mike Crowe
On Wed, May 02, 2001 at 12:14:44AM -0700, Marc MERLIN wrote: > On Sat, Apr 28, 2001 at 09:09:38PM +0100, Mike Crowe wrote: >> [stuff about the archiver being slow] > Yep, this is known, I've had the same problem on several servers, > including sourceforge.net, which only has

Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: "could not acquire qrunner lock", etc (partially solved)

2001-04-28 Thread Mike Crowe
ted flooding through. So, in summary, a P133 with 96Mb of RAM is not up to running even a relatively low volume list (50 messages per day) when ARCHIVE_TO_MBOX is set to 2. :-) -- Mike Crowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- Mailman-Users

Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: "could not acquire qrunner lock", etc

2001-04-28 Thread Mike Crowe
ount+1:]: self.AddToResponse(line, trunc=0, prefix='> ') <--- break I hope my understanding of this problem is correct and the above information is useful. I don't think I've got to the

Re: [Mailman-Users] Re: "could not acquire qrunner lock", etc

2001-04-25 Thread Mike Crowe
gain. I don't think mail has started going out yet because my load is still quite low - I'm off on a lockfile hunt :-) There was nothing revealing in the qrunner log. As you can see I'm running exim. I've read the README.EXIM file but I don't think it

[Mailman-Users] Re: "could not acquire qrunner lock", etc

2001-04-24 Thread Mike Crowe
nd stuff generally seems to be owned by user list, group list or owned by root, group list with g+rwX permissions. I tried putting some extra logging in the qrunner script but wasn't really sure what I was looking at. If someone can advise me where it would be best to log then I am willing t