Great Circle Associates Majordomo-Workers
(November 1996)
 

Indexed By Date: [Previous] [Next] Indexed By Thread: [Previous] [Next]

Subject: Re: Load limits
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs @ hpc . uh . edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 11:52:42 -0600
To: brozen @ webdreams . com
Cc: majordomo-workers @ greatcircle . com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 21 Nov 1996 03:42:44 -0500 (EST)"
References: <Pine.OSF.3.95.961121034146.13036R-100000@webdreams.com>

>>>>> "BR" == Brock Rozen <brozen@webdreams.com> writes:

BR> Can we include this in the beginning of the majordomo.cf file?  Set it
BR> to 10, for default, and then let people configure on their own

This should probably be sent to the list at large, so I'll CC
majordomo-workers.  It should definitely be commented out by default, but
it's a good idea to show how it's done.  Here's a patch, tested under perl4
and perl5.

--- sample.cf.orig	Mon Nov 18 14:12:48 1996
+++ sample.cf	Thu Nov 21 11:49:13 1996
@@ -72,6 +72,20 @@
 #
 # $config'default_subscribe_policy = "open+confirm";
 
+# You can force Majordomo to delay any processing if the system load is too
+# high by doing something like the following (the exact method is
+# system-dependent, but this works in most cases):
+#$max_loadavg = 10;                 # Choose the maximum allowed load
+#$_ = `/usr/bin/uptime`;            # Get system uptime
+#s/,/ /g;                           # Remove commas
+#@uptime = split(' ');              # Split into parts
+#$loadavg = $uptime[$#uptime - 0];  # use 0 for 15 minute average,
+#                                   #     1 for 5 minute average,
+#                                   #     2 for 1 minute average.
+#if ($loadavg >= $max_loadavg) {
+#    exit 75;                       # E_TEMPFAIL
+#}
+
 # 
 #  Configure X400 parsing here.  This is functional, but not well tested 
 #  and rather a hack.


Also, the X400 comment below doesn't look so good.  Is it still "rather a
hack"?

 - J<


Follow-Ups:
Indexed By Date Previous: Re: Potential 'which' / 'who' security loophole in 1.94
From: Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@hpc.uh.edu>
Next: Re: Load limits
From: Brent Chapman <Brent@GreatCircle.COM>
Indexed By Thread Previous: Re: Potential 'which' / 'who' security loophole in 1.94
From: Nick Perry <nick@aboard.co.uk>
Next: Re: Load limits
From: Brent Chapman <Brent@GreatCircle.COM>

Google
 
Search Internet Search www.greatcircle.com