On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 14:50, Peter C. Norton wrote: > On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 05:56:00PM -0400, Barry Warsaw wrote: > > On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 17:40, Harald Meland wrote: > > > Hence, I think it makes more sense to have the default be "do > > > fsync(2)", and let any performance-conscious site decide whether it > > > wants to explicitly value performance over safety. > > > > Except that when I did some very simple tests, I saw a 97% hit in > > performance with fsync turned on. This on a RH9, ext3 Linux box of the > > Dell Optiplex variety. That makes me very nervous to add in a patch > > release that won't have any beta testing. I've also never seen the bug > > on python.org, which may or may not be representative of the world at > > large. > > Wow. 97%? That's way too high. I'd expect about 50% at worst - for > the extra sync to disk when it enters mailman's queue and one more to > flush the message when its made it though the outbound queue to the > MTA. This is just a question, because I still don't know much about > the mm 2.1 internals, but is there a chance you're sync()'ing more > often then you need?
It's possible -- I don't have my test script any more. I just added a flush before closing the config.pck file and I think that will help much more than the sync. IIUC, there's really only a narrow window of opportunity for corruption that sync will solve, and if you're worried about that, you really should be on a UPS and possibly a sync'ing file system. -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
