|
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:28:41 EST |
In-Reply-To: |
Message of Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:58:50 +0100 from <ERIC@SEARN> |
Reply-To: |
|
On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:58:50 +0100 Eric Thomas said:
>On Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:06:36 EST "Steven P. Roder"
><[log in to unmask]> said:
>
>>Anyone have experience with list containing subscriptions upwards of
>>9,000 users? This NAVIGATE list in our system is growing at a rate of
>>about 2000/day (400 over the last hour), and currently contains approx.
>>8900. Is there a limit in LISTSERV?
>
>There is no limit beyond what your CPU and disks can deliver. Before 1.7d
>lists of that size required enormous amounts of CPU time for additions of
>new subscribers and so on, so in list archives you might find statements
>that these lists simply don't work. Message distribution still takes
>quites a lot of time, but then there's no way to avoid that and things
>are getting better with every release.
NETMONTH has at times gotten over 5,000. As Eric states, things have improved
a lot in the last two releases for large lists. Prior to non-sorted LIST
files, ADDs could take minutes. They are now very reasonable. The
distribution still takes some time. You should examine the logs for
how long it takes to distribute an average message. If you can afford the
time, I'd not peer the list. The only reason I'd peer a list today
would be to distribute the archives through out the network.
>
> Eric
/ahw
|
|
|