I would really like to see expire gone

[Todd Olson]

Hi
I suspect the Sleepycat database would be way to slow.
The e-mail-list server, Listproc, uses ver 2.6.7 of Sleepcat
to build a simple data base that lets you answer the question
'what e-lists is this address on'

when this list has be be rebuild from scratch with approximately 100,000
addresses, it takes close to two hours on a Sun E250 (dual 400Mhz ultrasparc
processors, 2G RAM, fastwide SCSI mirrored disks, ufs with veritas volume mgmt).

When the same build is done to a tmp filesystem, it takes about 1 min.

Most of the time with the disks the system seems to be waiting for
the disk system to commit a data item written to the database.

I would worry that using something like Sleepcat would greatly slowdown
the handling of incoming news.

Regards,
Todd Olson
Cornell University


At 15:21 -0800 2003/01/23, Russ Allbery wrote:
>bill davidsen <davidsen at tmr.com> writes:
>
>>   Has someone looked into this, and if so are there any notes on why it
>> isn't (shouldn't be) done with a database allowing nice gradual
>> deletions as the articles vanish, and no changes in service centered on
>> one part of the day?
>
>Figure out how to do it with acceptable performance, and I think it's a
>great idea.  We have a history API that should allow experiments with new
>history formats without breaking the world.
>
>I've not managed to figure out how to do it with acceptable performance.
>My intuition says that using something like BerkeleyDB will be *far* too
>slow.  But the BerkeleyDB folks didn't really agree with me, so I could
>well be wrong.  Someone may have to run an experiment to see.
>
>--
>Russ Allbery (rra at stanford.edu)             <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
>
>    Please send questions to the list rather than mailing me directly.
>     <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/faqs/questions.html> explains why.