Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > > Was that it? was it transient (which happens if there's too little CPU > > for too many logs), or are there still issues? > > I guess it was transient. I would have thought that 7+ hours after all > the logs were in I wouldn't have seen this though.
I think it was badly backlogged. > Perhaps if load is > this bad on the box we should consider reducing the mc-* preflight > mass-checks to 1 or 2 instead of 4. Is anyone paying attention to the > data from the mc-fast or mc-med? I found them to be to small to be useful. Yes, that may be a good idea. I'm going to have a pretty busy week this week with $dayjob, and will be away on holidays for 2 weeks after that ;), but it's certainly something we need to look into. > I'm also still a little curious as to whether it was expected for > Sunday's active.list to drop a metric tonne of rules, and if not what > caused it to do so. Maybe we should simply not publish a new active.list or rule updates after a weekly -net mass-check -- it always seems to have significantly different freqs, probably due to smaller amounts of mail being checked. --j.
