martin f krafft wrote: >also sprach Adam Majer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2004.10.06.1934 +0200]: > > >>After running for a little while, >> >> >[...] > > >>I wouldn't say it uses half a gig of ram. Something else is going >>on.. >> >> > >I had -m10 passed to spamd for 2.64. When I upgraded, I left that in >place. I almost hosed a server that went up to load 30 immediately. >It took me 40 minutes to get a shell, another 30 to halt postfix and >unload SA. > >Now it's running at -m5 (the suggested value) and I have not had >problems since. Of course, now I only get half the throughput, and >my queue has not emptied for a whole day because SA is unable to >keep up. > > > Spamassassin 2.63 used less ram,
PID USER PRI NI SIZE RSS SHARE STAT %CPU %MEM TIME COMMAND 14615 spamd 16 15 23204 11M 4708 S N 0.0 2.3 0:24 spamd so that would be about 40% of what spamassassin 3.0 seems to be using at the start and about 1/4 of what 3.0 used in my little run below. 3.0 is also seems slower than 2.63 probably because new/better tests were added.. I've also run spamassassin (spamassassin --mbox < mbox > obox), where mbox is about 850 messages. It took spamassassin, real 2m45.994s user 2m34.211s sys 0m1.949s It also used a max of 40MB during the run. This means that spamassassin 3.0 scans at a rate of about 5 message per second on Athlon 2000+. Max thoughput for the day should be at about 400k messages, but probably <100k should be a better target. Concurrency is not going to help you unless CPU is idle. In my case, -m 2 would use 100% CPU (not using razor). - Adam PS. 3.0 seems *much* better at detecting obfuscated spam. Where 2.63 gave an email 0.5, the new version gives it 7.3. Spam beware! :) On the other hand, this is a type of spam arms race. Running spamassassin will become more expensive as it improves. -- Building your applications one byte at a time http://www.galacticasoftware.com
