Nix,
That's probably a reasonable path for now, I'm using TxRep with the diff I posted but not on a large mail server. Thanks for the insight. -David On 27/02/2019 17.27, Nix wrote: > On 27 Feb 2019, David Gessel told this: > >> check https://bz.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=7164 >> >> My amateur analysis was summarized in this message >> https://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/spamassassin-users/201711.mbox/browser > btw, that's not a message, that's a whole mailbox. :) > > One thread in that mailbox talks about sa-learn taking 90 seconds per > token. 90 seconds is 3x the flock timeout for the txrep database, which > is consistent with four lock takeouts, three of them blocking on its own > locks because it doesn't bother to release the locks (perhaps the author > wrongly assumes they nest.) > > (90s/message is precisely what I saw until I hacked up the ugly > blocks-on-its-own-locks fix I cited earlier. Honestly, I suspect TxRep's > lock handling and state handling in general is so much of a tangled mess > that the thing cannot be considered a suitable replacement for the AWL > until it's entirely rewritten. It blocks on its own locks, it is clearly > doing something similar with redis, it reuses other users' configuration > unless you force it to throw away all its cached state for every message > and reconnect to all its dbs again (!)... this is not production-quality > code, sorry. I keep meaning to switch back to the AWL, which might be > less effective but at least doesn't have giant bugs suggestive of > software that is just not fully baked scattered all through it.) >
