> >>>>> "AMK" == Ashley M Kirchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > AMK> I have three domains sitting on one machine and mailman > AMK> installed for each one (meaning, three copies of mailman). > AMK> Each vhost has it's own web address, and crontask. And I can > AMK> have the same list name under all three vhosts and it works. > > That's the commonly accepted practice for "full-virtual" operation. I > don't plan on improving this situation until I get a Real Database > under Mailman. > Isnt that kinda wasteful of system resources? (I'm from a mainframe background back in the days where 1meg of memory was a huge untapped resource) I mean - three copies of sendmail - each consuming 'x' bytes of main memory + swapped isnt very much - but if I've got 200+ domains on a server (I dont - but I hope to one day ;-) then thats 200x the minimum memory footprint that I want to give up to a routine that *could* be instantiated just once. Anyways - if that's "full-virtual" - then how about a "little-bit-better-virtualization-than-currently-exists-without-breaking-the -system-and-without-going-bald-virtualization" ;-) Does the potential of what I mentioned - having the main data repositories for a list all prefixed inside of mailman by "foo.com/" exist??? Is the underlaying structure of mailman laid out to minimize these changes if I went ahead and started to patch them myself? Or am I dreaming of a utopia that can not exist? _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
