1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. NEWS.SOFTWARE.NNTP

  • Wrong group.

    From Miner@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 27 14:10:24 2022
    Incoming messages (from feed) appear in wrong group. Why this may
    happen?

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?=@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 27 19:49:15 2022
    Hi Miner,

    Incoming messages (from feed) appear in wrong group. Why this may
    happen?

    I don't know... Without more context, examples, and how you see they
    appear in the "wrong group", it will be difficult to help.

    --
    Julien ÉLIE

    « England, that French colony that went wrong. » (Georges Clémenceau)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miner@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 27 19:51:41 2022
    Julien ??LIE wrote:

    Hi Miner,

    Incoming messages (from feed) appear in wrong group. Why this may
    happen?

    I don't know... Without more context, examples, and how you
    see they appear in the "wrong group", it will be difficult to
    help.

    Lets say there is the group "talk" and "events". Sometimes
    messages for "talk" may suddenly appear in group "events" for
    unknown reason.

    This problem started since I "deleted the problematic group and
    recreate it again". Do you remember such thread
    (<t8n5uk$838$1@txtcon.i2p>)? I meant "talk" when I said
    problematic group.

    "talk" is high traffic group, but it was strange to observe there
    only several messages per day.

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 27 20:27:41 2022
    According to Miner <invalid@invalid.invalid>:
    Lets say there is the group "talk" and "events". Sometimes
    messages for "talk" may suddenly appear in group "events" for
    unknown reason.

    Yup, we get that.

    This problem started since I "deleted the problematic group and
    recreate it again". Do you remember such thread
    (<t8n5uk$838$1@txtcon.i2p>)? I meant "talk" when I said
    problematic group.

    I can say with great confidence that something is broken.

    Since you haven't offered any clues like what version of what software
    you're using or what operating system it's running on, or how the
    software is configured, how are we supposed to guess?

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nigel Reed@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Jun 27 18:34:04 2022
    On Mon, 27 Jun 2022 20:27:41 -0000 (UTC)
    John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:


    Since you haven't offered any clues like what version of what software
    you're using or what operating system it's running on, or how the
    software is configured, how are we supposed to guess?

    You mean you didn't bring your mind reading cap with you? :)



    --
    End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
    telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miner@21:1/5 to John Levine on Tue Jun 28 04:54:56 2022
    John Levine wrote:

    According to Miner <invalid@invalid.invalid>:
    Lets say there is the group "talk" and "events". Sometimes
    messages for "talk" may suddenly appear in group "events" for
    unknown reason.

    Yup, we get that.

    This problem started since I "deleted the problematic group and
    recreate it again". Do you remember such thread >(<t8n5uk$838$1@txtcon.i2p>)? I meant "talk" when I said
    problematic group.

    I can say with great confidence that something is broken.

    Since you haven't offered any clues like what version of what software
    you're using or what operating system it's running on, or how the
    software is configured, how are we supposed to guess?

    inn 2.6.4 on Gnu/Linux.

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miner@21:1/5 to Miner on Tue Jun 28 12:21:16 2022
    Miner wrote:

    Julien ??LIE wrote:

    Hi Miner,

    Incoming messages (from feed) appear in wrong group. Why this may
    happen?

    I don't know... Without more context, examples, and how you
    see they appear in the "wrong group", it will be difficult to
    help.

    Lets say there is the group "talk" and "events". Sometimes
    messages for "talk" may suddenly appear in group "events" for
    unknown reason.

    This problem started since I "deleted the problematic group and
    recreate it again". Do you remember such thread
    (<t8n5uk$838$1@txtcon.i2p>)? I meant "talk" when I said
    problematic group.

    "talk" is high traffic group, but it was strange to observe there
    only several messages per day.

    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Matija Nalis@21:1/5 to Miner on Tue Jun 28 16:04:13 2022
    On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:21:16 -0000 (UTC), Miner <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)


    It appears your buffindexed is corrupted. You should recreate it from scratch.

    According to buffindexed.conf(5): "You MUST entirely recreate overview if you remove or relpace buffers".
    Did you perhaps do that?

    --
    Opinions above are GNU-copylefted.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miner@21:1/5 to Matija Nalis on Tue Jun 28 15:12:32 2022
    Matija Nalis wrote:

    On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:21:16 -0000 (UTC), Miner <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)

    It appears your buffindexed is corrupted. You should recreate
    it from scratch.

    According to buffindexed.conf(5): "You MUST entirely recreate
    overview if you remove or relpace buffers".
    Did you perhaps do that?
    Sure.

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miner@21:1/5 to Miner on Tue Jun 28 17:37:56 2022
    Miner wrote:

    Matija Nalis wrote:

    On Tue, 28 Jun 2022 12:21:16 -0000 (UTC), Miner <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)

    It appears your buffindexed is corrupted. You should recreate
    it from scratch.

    According to buffindexed.conf(5): "You MUST entirely recreate
    overview if you remove or relpace buffers".
    Did you perhaps do that?
    Sure.

    Today I had switched on ovdb overview method.

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?=@21:1/5 to All on Sun Jul 3 23:34:58 2022
    Hi Miner,

    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)

    It appears your buffindexed is corrupted. You should recreate
    it from scratch.

    Today I had switched on ovdb overview method.

    I hope ovdb runs fine and you no longer encounter issues with your
    overview. Unfortunately, buffindexed appears not to be reliable enough
    (it suffers from some yet uncaught bugs).

    --
    Julien ÉLIE

    « La médecine est un métier dangereux. Ceux qui ne meurent pas peuvent
    vous faire un procès. » (Coluche)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Miner@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jul 4 07:01:23 2022
    Julien ??LIE wrote:

    Hi Miner,

    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)

    It appears your buffindexed is corrupted. You should recreate
    it from scratch.

    Today I had switched on ovdb overview method.

    I hope ovdb runs fine and you no longer encounter issues with
    your overview. Unfortunately, buffindexed appears not to be
    reliable enough (it suffers from some yet uncaught bugs).

    With ovdb no errors found. As a bonus ovdb offers usage
    statistics.

    --
    Miner

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Julien_=c3=89LIE?=@21:1/5 to All on Sun Sep 25 23:29:42 2022
    Hi Miner,

    It happened again.
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)
    innd: buffindexed: block(1, 255) not occupied (index)

    It appears your buffindexed is corrupted. You should recreate
    it from scratch.

    Today I had switched on ovdb overview method.

    I hope ovdb runs fine and you no longer encounter issues with
    your overview. Unfortunately, buffindexed appears not to be
    reliable enough (it suffers from some yet uncaught bugs).

    With ovdb no errors found. As a bonus ovdb offers usage
    statistics.

    I hope ovdb still gives you satisfaction.

    FYI, I switched my overview to buffindexed 2 months ago, in the hope to
    see that error but it hasn't happened yet on my server running Debian
    stable. It will be difficult to fix if I cannot reproduce it :-/

    It may be a platform-dependent bug or a peculiar configuration or
    specific articles or... Anyway, I'll keep this overview storage method
    a bit more, just in case.

    --
    Julien ÉLIE

    « Et cette même nuit, c'est-à-dire trois semaines plus tard… » (Astérix)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)