antoine.depoisier--- via Mailman-users writes: > First, my nodes are all an instance of mailman-core only. > I have an existing MTA that handle all email, and sent them to a > proxy, that dispatch all email between the existing pods. Then, > email are transferred to the MTA and MTA send them.
So you are distributing mailman core across multiple nodes? And "proxy" = "load balancer" (such as HAProxy)? That is probably subject to a number of problems, unless you do things that I'm not sure how to do. For example, when a user account is disabled by bounces, every so often Mailman will send a "hey, are you alive again?" message to the user. If enough of those bounce, the user gets unsubscribed. The problem is that that status is recorded in the PostgreSQL database that all Mailman instances have access to, and I think they'll probably all send those messages. At best there's a race condition where more than one might send the message. Under some conditions moderators may get daily messages about bounces. I suspect they would get one from each Mailman instance. I think digests will be broken unless you share the lists subfolder, because each Mailman instance will accumulate only the messages it processes, so chances are good on an active list that digest subscribers will get multiple partial digests when they should get only one. As I'll describe below, Mailman tends to spawn a lot of processes, many of which don't have much work to do. Now you're dividing very little work across multiple nodes, which seems very wasteful. You haven't said where your MTA lives. If it's Postfix, it needs to share the $data_dir folder with a Mailman instance that is responsible for list creation. Every time you restart Mailman it recreates the files in that folder, so if it's shared among Mailman instances there will be delays due to file locking. So unless you have an insane amount of list traffic to process (say, a G7 national government ;-), I wonder if the multi-instance approach is necessary. Mailman is not implemented to be operated that way -- you're asking for trouble. The design is such that I imagine it can be done with careful tuning, but current default configuration didn't consider such a use case. You don't need to answer, you know your use case and I don't, but you may save yourself a lot of trouble by just running with a little more resources on a single node. Mailman uses a lot of memory just to get started (about 2GB unless you're really aggressive and do unsupported tuning of which runners are started and what modules are loaded), but then it easily scales without increasing resources except CPU to some extent. For example I've worked on a system that processes hundreds of thousands of incoming posts a day on a single Linode (2vCPU, 16GB) running core, Postorius, HyperKitty, Xapian, and nginx (PostgreSQL got its own VM for some reason). CPU usage on that system never gets above 25%, active memory usage generally 20-25% and there's usually a substantial amount free despite Linux's strategy of aggressively caching files, load average normally around 2.5 and never more than 5. The only tuning we did there was to bump the out queue's slices to 8 and in queue to 2, but all running on that same Linode (which pushes Mailman's memory usage to over 2GB). Running "ls -R queue" gives all empty subfolders about 2/3 of the time. > For the folder queue, I'm not sure if I should share this folder > between all pods, because one instance of mailman core mean one > worker if I'm right, No, one instance of Mailman core means a minimum of 15 processes (one master and 14 runners) in the default configuration. About half of those have nothing to do most of the time. You can probably whittle that 15 down to 11 with some care at a cost of a certain amount of functionality. Most runners have their own queues as subfolders of 'queue'. Each queue consists of message files with times derived from the timestamp of creation and a hash. Each runner processes its queue in order of the timestamps. When its task is complete, it passes the message to the next runner in sequence by moving the file into the appropriate subfolder (with the same filename). By the nature of email, each message is independent of all the others. So we can process them in parallel, as long as there is a way to assign one and only one runner to each message in a queue. The way we do that is to take the top N bits of the hash component of the filename, which we call a slice. Thus each queue has 1 or 2 or 4 or 8, etc slices. To configure multiple slices for the out runner (usually the bottleneck because it's the one that talks almost directly to the network[1]), add [runner.out] instances: 4 to your mailman.cfg and restart. That's what I recommend you do. Footnotes: [1] At least Postfix optimizes relaying by opening a connection to the remote smtpd while still talking to Mailman, and only queues the file on disk if the remote connection fails. _______________________________________________ Mailman-users mailing list -- mailman-users@mailman3.org To unsubscribe send an email to mailman-users-le...@mailman3.org https://lists.mailman3.org/mailman3/lists/mailman-users.mailman3.org/ Archived at: https://lists.mailman3.org/archives/list/mailman-users@mailman3.org/message/QOUHNZ6DZYC67UDGK6USM7R42NOVG4I6/ This message sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
