From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19996 invoked by alias); 5 Apr 2004 22:11:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19946 invoked from network); 5 Apr 2004 22:11:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO dair.pair.com) (209.68.1.49) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Apr 2004 22:11:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 13544 invoked by uid 20157); 5 Apr 2004 22:11:28 -0000 Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:11:00 -0000 From: Hans-Peter Nilsson X-X-Sender: hp@dair.pair.com To: Phil Edwards cc: overseers@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: htdig and sources.redhat.com loadavg In-Reply-To: <20040405214650.GA2770@disaster.jaj.com> Message-ID: References: <200404051849.i35InoT27980@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20040405194633.GA30430@disaster.jaj.com> <20040405211524.GA1607@disaster.jaj.com> <20040405214650.GA2770@disaster.jaj.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2004-q2/txt/msg00049.txt.bz2 On Mon, 5 Apr 2004, Phil Edwards wrote: > Huh? If the problem is that the database files are growing larger than > their limit of 2G -- and that seems to be the issue based on all the old > mail in my mailbox -- then we look for files that are getting too large: No, you misunderstood. There's no need to search around for files that "grew too large". Checking the known set of DB files and see whether one of them is 0x7fffffff bytes long (but I suggest comparing with a slightly lower number) would give an improved indication that further attempts to re-index will also fail so it's no use for the script to retry. Feel free to improve the htdig-update script that way if you think it would improve the situation, but that's not the crontab thing you suggested. Still, nothing in that direction will help *now*; it would maybe help against useless re-indexing attempts if some temporary measure was taken that'd shrink the DB file to within 2G. It's just that I think I've already made all such reasonable temporary measures in the past. > > anyway no, you can win this game with a cute crontab entry, > > except perhaps the change made that prepended an existing one > > with "#". > > Likewise, I can't parse that. By prepending the existing htdig-update entry with "#", I disabled it. The point was that once htdig DB gets "over the limit", it stays that way. Re-indexing makes files (at least temporarily) slightly larger than with a plain update. brgds, H-P