Re: INN packages
In article <cistron.20000118203743.A2982@wonderland.linux.it>,
Marco d'Itri <md@linux.it> wrote:
>On Jan 18, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> wrote:
>
>I'm willing to maintain inn 1.x and innfeed as well.
Now there's a nice offer
> >my servers to the 2.2.2 packages. Also, note that there were a number of
> >fairly serious and release-critical bugs against the 1.7.2 packages. If I
>Really? I'm using it on three different production servers, and never
>had any problem.
You must have missed the "Distribution: ," bug then. I'm quite surprised
people like HipCrime haven't started to exploit this bug.
> >major corporation. I think both of you have been fairly harsh in your
> >comments about versions other than 2.3. When properly tuned, they are quite
> >capable.
>They are not. Plain simply, uniover sucks under load and it's much
>slower than the traditonal overview database. INN 2.x is useful only
>on transit servers.
Nonsense, ofcourse. That's only if you turn on a storage method. With
traditional spool, you also have traditional overview. And traditional
spool is still the default.
It's a matter of a) tuning inn.conf and incoming.conf and b) rebuilding
history (just the dbz database, not the ascii file) and inn 2.2 should
run just as fine as 1.7.2 with the existing spool, overview and history [*]
> >Alexander implied with his comments that I'm somehow not very knowledgeable
> >about news servers or the state of INN development. Without rattling off my
>I hope you will not be offended, but after reading your opinions on INN
>I have to agree with him.
See [*].
Mike.
--
The From: and Reply-To: addresses are internal news2mail gateway addresses.
Reply to the list or to miquels@cistron.nl (Miquel van Smoorenburg)
Reply to: