From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Nov 23 12:10:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F30137B401 for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:10:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from kirk.dlee.org (pool-138-88-115-98.res.east.verizon.net [138.88.115.98]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FD1943E6E for ; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 12:10:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dgl@kirk.dlee.org) Received: from kirk.dlee.org (dgl@localhost.dlee.org [127.0.0.1]) by kirk.dlee.org (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id gANKAfqc003554; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:10:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dgl@kirk.dlee.org) Received: (from dgl@localhost) by kirk.dlee.org (8.12.5/8.12.5/Submit) id gANKAf22003553; Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:10:41 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from dgl) Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002 15:10:41 -0500 From: Doug Lee To: Dan Nelson Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Is this a good time for a procmail global lock file? Message-ID: <20021123201040.GM55241@kirk.dlee.org> Mail-Followup-To: Doug Lee , Dan Nelson , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20021123185018.GJ55241@kirk.dlee.org> <20021123193700.GB4795@dan.emsphone.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021123193700.GB4795@dan.emsphone.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.25i Organization: Bartimaeus Group Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 01:37:00PM -0600, Dan Nelson wrote: > It's likely that procmail does not lock LOGFILE, and from looking at > the source it writes the abstract with a huge number of separate > write() calls. You're probably stuck with using a global lockfile, > which should force serial access to procmail. If you only have one > rule in your procmailrc, it's no worse than a local lockfile. If > you've got a bunch, you might need to log the abstracts manually with a > single write call (or rewrite procmail's logging functions). A call to > /usr/bin/printf with the appropriate format string should work. I have a bunch of rules, but with maybe 360 emails/day, it won't slow things down too much to force serial access... but could I create deadlocks this way by accident? I do not call procmail directly from a recipe, but I do have filter rules that pipe through other stuff. -- Doug Lee dgl@dlee.org http://www.dlee.org Bartimaeus Group doug@bartsite.com http://www.bartsite.com "Liberty comes in boxes: ballot, jury, and ammo." -Anonymous To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message