Hi,
we found recently that we had a problem with /mail/tmp/L.mbox
used by upasfs to lock.
Looking into, we found that in upas/common/libsys.c the
function generating the lock file name returns always L.mbox
but not .../L.mbox file name as it seems it should.
Also, the function doing the actual
Looking into, we found that in upas/common/libsys.c the
function generating the lock file name returns always L.mbox
but not .../L.mbox file name as it seems it should.
i think the comment above the function is important
we use one lock per directory. it's been a long time since
i worked on
Yes, I noticed the comment, but I thought it was wrong.
The problem was that we had quite a number of upas/fs's and scanmails
running and it was because one of them had a problem and kept a
/mail/tmp/L.mbox file locked. All other ones kept waiting for that
(although all of them were using
The problem was that we had quite a number of upas/fs's and scanmails
running and it was because one of them had a problem and kept a
/mail/tmp/L.mbox file locked. All other ones kept waiting for that
(although all of them were using different mboxes created by the
piped script at
Yes, perhaps we should stop using that.
Nevertheless, the problem I was trying to address is that
everyone is sharing /mail/tmp (see the scripts in /mail/lib,
although I'm sure you know them from memory :) ), and thus
if one has one problem, it can lock everyone else using /mail/tmp.
I'll take a
On 18 April 2013 15:51, Fco. J. Ballesteros n...@lsub.org wrote:
if one has one problem, it can lock everyone else using /mail/tmp.
I use a private ramfs, which is also faster.
On 18 April 2013 15:51, Fco. J. Ballesteros n...@lsub.org wrote:
if one has one problem, it can lock everyone else using /mail/tmp.
I use a private ramfs, which is also faster.
Obvious, when one points it out!
++L
yes, except that the whole thing
got worse because one of our servers
had a lot of memory used due to
those and we put back the bind for
tmp.
On Apr 18, 2013, at 5:33 PM, Charles Forsyth charles.fors...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18 April 2013 15:51, Fco. J. Ballesteros n...@lsub.org wrote:
if
On Thu Apr 18 12:10:28 EDT 2013, n...@lsub.org wrote:
yes, except that the whole thing
got worse because one of our servers
had a lot of memory used due to
those and we put back the bind for
tmp.
ramfs -l 10m
(the 9atom version of ramfs does proper accounting to
make this work.)
also,
