rra at stanford.edu
Fri Jul 16 05:43:19 UTC 1999
Richard Michael Todd <rmtodd at mailhost.ecn.ou.edu> writes:
> Might mention here that the primary reason you'd probably want to *not*
> use wireformat is if you have some old existing software that grovels
> about in the spool and was written for the traditional article
> Occasionaly one does need to modify this one. If you're having problems
> with channel feeds keeping up, setting this value low (2-3 seconds)
> helps a lot as when the channel feed backlogs and the pipe fills, innd
> will only wait 2 seconds to try again, instead of 2 minutes.
I've added a note to that effect.
> IMHO, this default is rather low (think about it, that's flushing the
> active file to disk almost every *second* on a system with a fairly full
> feed.) I usually run with 1000, myself. Of course, for an innd that
> gets little traffic (say one set up just to gate some mailinglists into
> newsgroups) waiting for 1000 articles to come in may be too much, and 10
> be just right.
Shall we increase this and document that you may want to decrease it in
that circumstance? I'd say that the low-traffic cases is the rarer one.
I'm holding off on committing these revisions until I have a chance to add
documentation for the remaining undocumented parameters, since I should be
able to get to that tonight or tomorrow.
Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
More information about the inn-workers