On 11/16/2005 14:12, Eric Thomas wrote: > I think we have an assumption in this thread that the X-SPAM jobs are the > cause of Paul's problems, and that Paul is forced to accept poor web > response as a result of this legacy spam prevention function. Based on my > knowledge of the code, I would challenge this assumption. Just because there > are a lot of X-SPAM jobs doesn't necessarily mean that they tie up LISTSERV. > There is an easy wait to find out: simply add DEBUG_TIME_ALL=1 to your > configuration. This will make LISTSERV log execution timing for every > command it processes. There is *some* overhead outside of what is captured > by DEBUG_TIME_ALL=1, but it is not very much. I went looking for a really > old backbone site where I have administrator access, and the oldest I could > find was a 733MHz Intel server, where I get the following timings: I will add this to our go.user file, however, with 32,000+ lists, LISTSERV initialization takes approximately 75 minutes, so I will need to schedule an outage to restart the service. > As for jobs having priority over interactive requests, this is definitely > not the way it is meant to be. If indeed this is what is happening at ND, it > is a bug and needs to be fixed. This has been an ongoing problem for some time, and I am virtually certain that the LSTSRV-L archives contain similar reports from at least one other site. -- Paul Russell Senior Systems Administrator OIT Messaging Services Team University of Notre Dame