History File over 2GB

[greg andruk]

bill davidsen wrote:

> | The rollover stuff might be better noticed and flagged by readers than innd.
> 
> The problem being that readers are not all smart.

Oh, I think we're on the same page then.  I mean INN readers (primarily 
nnrpd) might notice the situation, and inform the overview scribbler 
(inn or overchan), or even make the change itself.  We've had so many 
flavors of overview in the past few years that I've really lost track of 
who can safely change stuff.

In the words of the esteemed philospher Ellen Feiss, it would be.. 
like... a bummer... if you're the first reader to run across the 
rollover, but it should average out.

> At the end of the remember period the message-id becomes not known, so
> it would be accepted if offered again (not likely). And for advanced
> expire schemes you might want all info on the article to go away,
> including the article text if still present. The alternative would be to
> have article text not known to history, evil or not depending on storage
> method.

Well... one of the nice things about the fixed record size we now seem 
to have is that updates are almost practical to do, including deletes. 
What I don't particularly care for, though, is the idea that innd would 
be performing random access on the history text. Pushing history work 
into a thread or three would be attractive, but it's not really clear if 
all the various Unixoid systems really have their threading acts 
together yet. It's certainly looks better than it did a couple years 
ago, but...


> As you might guess I have problems with users complaining when an
> article is in overview and not online, or when LISTGROUP and XOVER don't
> agree (and sometimes neighter is correct).

Yeah, but checking should be quite a bit cheaper than it was in the 2.2 
days. I suspect that a lot of gain can be had from small tweaks to 
what's already in there; again, I haven't got too deep into the current 
overview k0deZ, but overall they look pretty nice.