On 4/6/2016 10:38 AM, jaso...@mail-central.com wrote: > In my logs I see postscreen cache cleanups > > postfix/postscreen[18826]: cache > btree:/var/lib/postfix/postscreen_cache full cleanup: retained=224 dropped=12 > entries > > It looks like it's happening because they're 'full' at the time.
They are removed because they are expired. > > Under "CACHE CONTROLS" & "RESOURCE CONTROLS" @ > http://www.postfix.org/postscreen.8.html, I don't see a param to increase the > cache size. > There is no limit on the cache size, and the default postscreen_*_ttl values should be reasonable for the vast majority of sites. > Does the cache need to b increased, so performance doesn't suffer? > What's the parameter to control that? No. > > Also in the docs I see > > postscreen_cache_map (default: btree:$data_directory/postscreen_cache) > > Is there any advantage/harm in using lmdb here, instead of btree? I'm > already using lmdb as default DB type for most other !pcre tables. Access latency is the important part. Slow access to the cache will limit the number of connections postfix can service. btree is suggested because it's fast and supports the features needed. I don't use lmdb, so I can't really answer if it's suitable for the postscreen cache. -- Noel Jones
