Slow expireover (again)
rra at stanford.edu
Sun May 23 08:09:20 UTC 2004
Mike Zanker <mike-sender-6677e0 at zanker.org> writes:
> This particular box has only ever has 2.4.1 on it. Initially it was a
> feeder+reader with tradspool. Pretty soon expireover and expire times
> started going downhill so I changed to timecaf which seemed to help.
Did they go down in direct proportion to the number of articles on the
system, or did they start going downhill later on after the article count
> I then moved feeding to a new P4 with 1GB RAM and U320 SCSI disks (which
> rocks) and changed the Ultra 10 to a reader using timehash (because
> timehash had worked well on the linux box). This is when expireover
> times really started increasing, especially when I started carrying a
> full text-only feed (about 41,000 groups).
What's puzzling me in part is why your system is so much slower than mine,
when I'm also running Solaris (albeit on much faster disk). But I do have
only a fourth as many newsgroups as you do, so if the time to change
between groups while expiring is actually dominating, that could explain
it. That would intuitively surprise me, though. Hm.
I wonder if we could manage to build a profiled expireover and gather some
statistics from that as to what functions are dominating the profile.
> Thanks for looking into this - I'm sure expireover will still be running
> first thing tomorrow so I'll try and get a more interesting trace.
Sure thing. Slowness in expiration is one of INN's big problems. I have
a few ideas as to how to possibly fix it, but none of them are completely
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.
More information about the inn-workers