>>>>> "BS" == Bill Silvert <sysop@biome.bio.dfo.ca> writes:
BS> It is clear from the mail that shows up on the users list that I am not
BS> the only MJ user who sometimes finds that one or more lists have been
BS> eradicated.
Well, that was a known bug in 1.93 which was fixed in 1.94. If something
else is causing lists to go away, I haven't heard about it.
BS> First of all, the documentation should clearly warn of this problem,
BS> and should describe good backup procedures.
If (as in the 1.94 distribution) we don't know that any problem exists, why
should we warn about it? "We regret to inform you that we don't know of
any problems, so to avoid them, be sure to..."
BS> Second, while I don't know the actual procedure that MJ follows in
BS> processing requests, it seems to me that the following could be added
BS> quite easily, and perhaps refined; when a list is processed, count the
BS> number of lines in the request. Make a backup copy of every list before
BS> it is modified, and don't erase the backup if the number of entries in
BS> the new list is less than the original number minus the number of lines
BS> in the message being processed.
We already do one better than that, we count the actual number of
characters and things are meticulously saved and moved around. (On
unsubscribes that is, where you have to actually rewrite the file. For
subscribes, the writing happens in append mode and the original file is
never moved or deleted.)
Honestly, have you seen a single complaint of list erasure with 1.94? I
haven't, and I've tested it under all of the conditions which would kill
1.93. I cannot reproduce the problem. I've driven my load above 500
sending ten thousand subscription requests, during which I filled up the
partition. The list was not erased (though of course some requests were
lost, but if you can't append to the list, you just can't).
- J<
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
