[Mailman-Developers] Re: Slow Performance on semi-large lists

[D.J. Atkinson]

One more thing...

>Actually, that's not true if the queue is reduced to containing only A,
>C, and D, and qrunner always times out on D; D will never get the same
>time as A and C.  Leaving D at the head of the queue (that is,
>splitting the queue ahead of the current batch, rather than behind it)
>solves that problem until the case occurs in which D contains enough
>bad or slow addresses to stop the queue even though it's first.  Two
>solutions to this: 1) never stop qrunner during the first queued batch
>(always wait for it to exit); or 2) split the queue ahead or behind of
>the current batch randomly.

I'm obviously not the exepert, but my observations indicate that qrunner
does complete the current message batch before checking to see if it's
exceeded the "QRUNNER_PROCESS_LIFETIME" value, so you could always set it
to the next message in the queue.

--
       o o o o o o o . . .                                  _______
      o         _____ _____        ____________________ ____] D D [_||___
   ._][__n__n___|DD[ [     \_____  |  D.J. Atkinson   | | dj@pcisys.net |
  >(____________|__|_[___________]_|__________________|_|_______________|
  _/oo OOOO OOOO oo` 'ooooo ooooo` 'o!o            o!o` 'o!o         o!o`
-+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+-
Visit my web page at http://www.pcisys.net/~dj