Hello, On Fri, 03 Aug 2018, Michael Ströder wrote:
On 08/03/2018 08:40 PM, David Haller wrote:
Let's see what our then ML-Admin had to say about that a while ago and why the lists are run with mlmmj:
==== Wenn diese Liste über Mailman betrieben würde, dann würden wir den ganzen Tag nichts anderes machen als eine Menschenkette zum nächsten Computerladen aufrechtzuerhalten um RAM in einem konstanten fluss in lists.suse.com einzubauen ;) -- suse-linux-owner, ebenda ==== If this list were run with mailman, we'd have to have a chain-of-people to the next computer-store all day to install a constant stream of RAM into lists.suse.com ;) ====
Could you please elaborate on what "a while ago" really means?
Oh, dunno, it's been quite a while I guess. In the naughties. Probably the first half... ;)
I suspect that this statement is really old and I doubt that today you can even buy such a small amount of RAM (minimum needed for mailman) for a server anymore.
Who was saying anything about the "minimum for mailman"? The list-owner was _quite_ explicit, that mailman was _quite_ fine for small lists, ISTR he even recommended it at times for easy configurability or such. But for a list-setup like at suse, with _that volume_ and number of subscribers (ok, it _was_ about the peak of suse-ML subscribers, usage and volume generally[5]), they really would've needed _oodles_ of RAM, i.e. just about constantly feeding the box(en?) with RAM to keep up with mailmans needs...
That does not mean that o.o should blow up all its infrastructure with RAM hogs. But it also does not mean to still run ancient ML software just because it's implemented in C. (BTW: Does mlmmj sill receive good security reviews? Or at least are decent AppArmor profiles in place?)
No idea about AppArmour[-1] or current mlmmj sec reviews, but, consider, that the switch from ezmlm[0] to mlmmj[1] was not done after very _serious_ considerations. That about fits the timeframe... Mailman _WAS_ considered and (obviously, because of it's need of RAM) rather fast discarded as an alternative... And I very much doubt the actual list-server has anything to do with the "problem", it rather is the WUI (Web-User-Interface) to the _ARCHIVE_ of the list that is the problem. And mlmmj has nothing to do with that. Nor had ezmlm. Actually, the _ARCHIVE_ and it's WUI/search did _NOT_ change from before to after the switch from ezmlm to mlmmj. BTW: Besides googling or so, there's e.g. https://marc.info/?l=opensuse-factory (formerly known as marc.theaimsgroup.com) as an alternative WUI to an alternative archive of this (and many other) lists. Bcc-ing the then list-owner ;) @the-then-list-owner: correct me if I'm wrong, if you prefer via PM to me, I'll keep you Bcc'd if you don't want to actually join this discussion. HTH, -dnh, "Memory fault -- core...uh...um...core... Oh dammit, I forget!" [-1] Bcc-ing the AppArmor guru too [0] run at_least since: ==== Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 19:59:08 +0000 Mailing-List: contact suse-linux-help@suse.com; run by ezmlm ==== Can't find earlier mails ATM without further digging. [1] from opensuse-factory: === Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:42:07 +0200 Mailing-List: contact opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org; run by ezmlm ==== Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2006 00:40:42 +0200 Mailing-List: contact opensuse-factory-help@opensuse.org; run by mlmmj ==== If it's _THAT_ important, I can dig into my (sadly rather disorganized) local archives a bit more... [5] ISTR 6k+ subs on -de alone, and 100+ mails/day. Even more on -en! (Almost?) didn't "read" -en back then, not sure if subscribed anyway, too much noise, too small SNR... -- Aaaah! I feel insanity approaching. On a Unicycle. Backwards. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org