<deleted> Someone explain to me why it matters, please? -- Marc Wilson msw(a)cox.net posguy99(a)gmail.com

Mail Lists <lists <at> sapience.com> writes: All very well - but the fact remains that for a user like me the list is the primary method of discussion about Fedora issues, fixes, workarounds etc. and I would like to see a timely server response - certainly it did not used to be like this with slow response. Maybe when the lists move to their new servers around 9th January 2010 then perhaps the servers will be tuned to deal with posts in a timely fashion?

Tim wrote: Yes, it "shouldn't" (one of those famous last words). Still, if you have processes reporting times that are off by 14 minutes it would be nice to track down the culprit. Of "interest" is 14 is "around" half the difference between GMT+1030 and GMT+1100. :-)

Tim: Ed Greshko: It shouldn't, and it doesn't. The hardware clock is set to GMT on that machine, too. It's not dual-boot, and it's rarely ever rebooted or shutdown. Everything was set up for the least annoyances. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.

2009/12/28 Mail Lists <lists(a)sapience.com&gt;: That's the point I was trying to make. Higher latency does not necessarily mean throughput goes down, it may in fact go up - That's fundamental to a lot of engineering disciplines. Lets take the example of mail-servers sending out similar messages, to keep this on-topic. We have two possible delivery methods (there are more obviously): A) We can either send out each message in the order it is queued, one message at a time. B) We can hold each message a while and wait to see if the same message comes in for a different recipient on the same mailserver - and then send them both in the same SMTP transaction. Strategy (A) has the lowest latency. Strategy (B) has a higher latency, as it will take a "while" to fill the buffer and pop out the same message. Ultimately with millions of messages in the pipeline, Strategy (B) will have a higher throughput, because it is more efficient to queue multiple mails together. So my point being, an increase in Latency is not something to be concerned about. What intrigues me is that people seem to have some kind of expectation of "immediate" email delivery. Last I looked, email wasn't defined as a reliable transmission method with any kind of time guarantee. -- Sam

Tim wrote: Weird.... Wondering if "hwclock -r" returns a correct time...or if there is a difference between the hardware clock and the system clock.

On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 17:23 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: Yeah, our timezones are GMT+9.5 normally, or GMT+10.5 in summer time (which is now). A half hour difference, but the headers show the time flipping by 14 minutes, as well. And, it's all on the same computer. Grrrrrr! Locally, it was fetchmail getting mail from my host, dropping it into my personal (local) mailbox, and I read it through dovecot on the same box. Me either, I've made the same argument on other mailing lists, in the past. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.

Tim: Mail Llists: Your ISP's or within the list server servers'? Headers from your email, as I received it (but abbreviated), below: Received: from localhost; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:13:43 +1030 Envelope-to: tim@localhost; Delivery-date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:27:35 +1100 Received: from server for tim@localhost (single-drop); Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:13:43 +1030 (CST) Received: from mx1-phx2.redhat.com by external mail ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:27:35 +1100 Received: from lists01.pubmisc.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:20:06 -0500 Received: from int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:17:02 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:16:57 -0500 Received: from s3.sapience.com ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:16:46 -0500 Received: from mail.prv.sapience.com ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:16:45 -0500 Received: from lap1.prv.sapience.com ; Mon, 28 Dec 2009 00:16:45 -0500 I can see a delay in the middle, but only a few minutes. That could well be normal processing times. And something odd within my LAN; some 14 minutes going back and forth in time. All our PCs are NTP synchronised, and timezones are set right (Adelaide, South Australia), so it's not a local clock issue. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.

Mail Lists wrote: Of course a given message, by default, would have to remain in the queue for 4320 minutes before it is declared non-deliverable. Somehow I think the list admins would notice message delays and queue depths that would result in messages becoming non-deliverable and take the appropriate action. -- When I saw a sign on the freeway that said, "Los Angeles 445 miles," I said to myself, "I've got to get out of this lane." -- Franklyn Ajaye Guess Who! http://tinyurl.com/mc4xe7

On 12/27/2009 01:09 PM, Marc Wilson wrote: Coz if the server can only process N messages per day - there will be a backup problem ... and messages will eventually get deleted before they get mailed out. That help?

On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 11:16 +0000, Mike Cloaked wrote: I'm not convinced that the few minutes delay in question is really going to cause you such a big problem. How fast do you expect people to type replies to your question?