From: Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 03 2000 - 15:00:19 CST
Brad Templeton <brad@templetons.com> writes:
> So what about adding 'em? That does solve all the issues, at a cost of
> disk space in the history file. Disk space is hardly expensive.
It doesn't just cost disk space; it costs memory. You want as much of the
history file memory-resident as possible for speed. And memory *is*
expensive. It's not a huge increase, but you're talking about increasing
the size of the history file by ~10%, roughly.
The functionality gained really isn't worth it, IMO.
> But they must do other things, like interpret cancel messages, no? How
> do they do cancel messages if they don't have a history file mapping
> msgids to numbers?
They don't. The slaves do. At least in most of the clusters I'm familiar
with. An increasingly common way of handling cancels is entirely within
the overview, without any changes to article storage, and the slaves are
the systems with the overview files.
-- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>