Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 5 Mar 1997 20:50:08 +0100 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Wed, 5 Mar 1997 10:52:44 -0500 Laura Toms <[log in to unmask]> said:
>>5 Mar 1997 04:56:31 Processing file 26437 from [log in to unmask]
>>5 Mar 1997 04:56:31 Processing mail from [log in to unmask] for UNSNETCO-L
>>5 Mar 1997 04:56:31 Directory /var/spool/listserv accessed as virtual
>>disk
>slot E.
>>5 Mar 1997 04:56:31 Distributing mail ("UNSNETCO-L") from
>[log in to unmask]
>>..
There's nothing wrong with that sequence, other than the delay in getting
to the posting. The problem is that your machine isn't fast enough to
keep up with new mail at the speed at which it arrives. The jobs are not
necessarily processed FIFO, which leads to occasional record delays, but
the real problem is that you have a chronical backlog which is not even
clearing overnight (if it had cleared, the posting would have been the
only message left in the spool and would have been processed promptly).
Any mail system that has backlogs that do not clear overnight needs to be
upgraded as it is underperforming the postal service :-) You should never
have more than a dozen files in your spool directory, except following a
system or network outage, or during the short bursts of traffic that are
typical for mail workloads. If you consistently have thousands of files
in your spool directory, your system is underpowered.
Eric
|
|
|