On Tue, 04 May 2010 15:59 -0400, "Ken Murchison" <mu...@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote: > I've been thinking about this for a while and I keep coming back to the > same answer. > > seen_local is legacy and I wouldn't expect to find this in the wild > anymore. I don't think we should waste cycles doing anything with it.
Besides - the seen_db code can actually read seen_local files and auto-upgrade them, so it doesn't hurt too much to remove seen_local and FORCE seen_db. > I don't recall why seen_bigdb was created by one of my predecesors, but > its not used in production at CMU. I don't think its the way to go, > even with your Seen state changes. I'm tempted to remove it then: simplify, simplify! > The reason is that I think the distributed Seen state offered by seen_db > is the best for sites with a large number of shared mailboxes, such as > CMU. We currently have over 14,000 shared mailboxes that are called > bulletin boards on campus (used to be a lot more when we also had > non-binary newsgroups). And we have 10's of thousands of users reading > these mailboxes and maintaining their own Seen state. Using the current > divide and conquer approach where we keep each user's Seen state in a > separate database seems the most sane to me, rather than having several > hundred or thousand handles open to a single database. I'm sold. > Any change that will effect the performance or stability of CMU's > current environment would not be a good thing. For sure :) I've actually already made the changes I need to seen_db and not to seen_bigdb, so I'm happy anyway! Bron. -- Bron Gondwana br...@fastmail.fm
