You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@spamassassin.apache.org by Justin Mason <jm...@jmason.org> on 2007/05/07 12:16:08 UTC
Re: ruleqa broken [Re: svn commit: r535514 - /spamassassin/trunk/masses/rule-qa/corpus-hourly]
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
> jm@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: jm
> > Date: Sat May 5 05:35:44 2007
> > New Revision: 535514
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=535514
> > Log:
> > create temporary copies of the log files we process, to avoid race conditions where rsyncd uploads a new rev which we then think is data from an OLD rev
> >
> > Modified:
> > spamassassin/trunk/masses/rule-qa/corpus-hourly
>
> This or one of the revisions up to r535536 (I haven't looked at them)
> seems to have made things worse.
>
> Sunday's active.list had a lot of rules, including all the new sandbox
> rules, removed from it and (probably related) at the moment ruleqa is
> only showing logs from "bb-doc jm" for r535586. I see logs from the
> usual submitters for this rev on the server:
>
> ham-bb-doc.log ham-bb-jm.log ham-daf.log ham-jm.log
> spam-bb-doc.log spam-bb-jm.log spam-daf.log spam-jm.log
> ham-bb-fredt.log ham-bb-zmi.log ham-dos.log ham-theo.log
> spam-bb-fredt.log spam-bb-zmi.log spam-dos.log spam-theo.log
Seems to have caught up now:
http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20070506-r535586-n
20070506-r535586-n (Viewing)
bb-doc bb-fredt bb-jm bb-zmi cthielen daf dos jm theo zmi [+]
opening the "+" reveals:
ham-bb-doc.log:
started: 20070506T091115Z;
submitted: 20070506T093735Z;
size: 312 bytes
ham-bb-fredt.log:
started: 20070506T151915Z;
submitted: 20070506T155143Z;
size: 1087394 bytes
ham-bb-jm.log:
started: 20070506T093837Z;
submitted: 20070506T151806Z;
size: 16238640 bytes
ham-bb-zmi.log:
started: 20070506T155254Z;
submitted: 20070506T162713Z;
size: 312 bytes
ham-cthielen.log:
started: 20070506T122735Z;
submitted: 20070506T133053Z;
size: 4391688 bytes
ham-daf.log:
started: 20070506T091025Z;
submitted: 20070506T135423Z;
size: 6665678 bytes
ham-dos.log:
started: 20070506T090019Z;
submitted: 20070506T212556Z;
size: 494917 bytes
ham-jm.log:
started: 20070506T090634Z;
submitted: 20070506T123108Z;
size: 9187465 bytes
ham-theo.log:
started: 20070506T091159Z;
submitted: 20070506T174450Z;
size: 52540352 bytes
ham-zmi.log:
started: 20070506T225258Z;
submitted: 20070507T012813Z;
size: 4016708 bytes
spam-bb-doc.log:
started: 20070506T091115Z;
submitted: 20070506T093736Z;
size: 13392838 bytes
spam-bb-fredt.log:
started: 20070506T151915Z;
submitted: 20070506T155146Z;
size: 15182533 bytes
spam-bb-jm.log:
started: 20070506T093837Z;
submitted: 20070506T151812Z;
size: 28963175 bytes
spam-bb-zmi.log:
started: 20070506T155254Z;
submitted: 20070506T162715Z;
size: 14949375 bytes
spam-cthielen.log:
started: 20070506T122735Z;
submitted: 20070506T133053Z;
size: 307706 bytes
spam-daf.log:
started: 20070506T091025Z;
submitted: 20070506T135535Z;
size: 46882451 bytes
spam-dos.log:
started: 20070506T090019Z;
submitted: 20070506T213308Z;
size: 147063429 bytes
spam-jm.log:
started: 20070506T090634Z;
submitted: 20070506T123146Z;
size: 15913065 bytes
spam-theo.log:
started: 20070506T091159Z;
submitted: 20070506T174738Z;
size: 406172209 bytes
spam-zmi.log:
started: 20070506T225258Z;
submitted: 20070507T012819Z;
size: 14755129 bytes
Was that it? was it transient (which happens if there's too little CPU
for too many logs), or are there still issues?
--j.
Re: ruleqa broken [Re: svn commit: r535514 - /spamassassin/trunk/masses/rule-qa/corpus-hourly]
Posted by "Daryl C. W. O'Shea" <sp...@dostech.ca>.
Justin Mason wrote:
> Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
>> jm@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: jm
>>> Date: Sat May 5 05:35:44 2007
>>> New Revision: 535514
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=535514
>>> Log:
>>> create temporary copies of the log files we process, to avoid race conditions where rsyncd uploads a new rev which we then think is data from an OLD rev
>>>
>>> Modified:
>>> spamassassin/trunk/masses/rule-qa/corpus-hourly
>> This or one of the revisions up to r535536 (I haven't looked at them)
>> seems to have made things worse.
>>
>> Sunday's active.list had a lot of rules, including all the new sandbox
>> rules, removed from it and (probably related) at the moment ruleqa is
>> only showing logs from "bb-doc jm" for r535586. I see logs from the
>> usual submitters for this rev on the server:
>>
>> ham-bb-doc.log ham-bb-jm.log ham-daf.log ham-jm.log
>> spam-bb-doc.log spam-bb-jm.log spam-daf.log spam-jm.log
>> ham-bb-fredt.log ham-bb-zmi.log ham-dos.log ham-theo.log
>> spam-bb-fredt.log spam-bb-zmi.log spam-dos.log spam-theo.log
>
> Seems to have caught up now:
> http://ruleqa.spamassassin.org/20070506-r535586-n
>
> 20070506-r535586-n (Viewing)
> bb-doc bb-fredt bb-jm bb-zmi cthielen daf dos jm theo zmi [+]
> Was that it? was it transient (which happens if there's too little CPU
> for too many logs), or are there still issues?
I guess it was transient. I would have thought that 7+ hours after all
the logs were in I wouldn't have seen this though. Perhaps if load is
this bad on the box we should consider reducing the mc-* preflight
mass-checks to 1 or 2 instead of 4. Is anyone paying attention to the
data from the mc-fast or mc-med? I found them to be to small to be useful.
I'm also still a little curious as to whether it was expected for
Sunday's active.list to drop a metric tonne of rules, and if not what
caused it to do so.
Daryl