[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, probably a dumb question, i excel at those!
i'm quarantining on average 1,000 messages per hour. no, this isn't
'stock' qmail-scanner, it's qmail-scanner-st, so most of what i'm
quarantining is spam. without regard to the arguments for and against
quarantining
At 08:43 AM 7/18/2005, Adam Goryachev wrote:
reiserfs is supposed to handle this case much better, also supposed to
handle large numbers of small files (ie, email) better... My opinion is
that after a few hundred thousand files in the one directory, it will
still be slow... although it's probably
At 06:49 PM 7/17/2005, you wrote:
Probably won't happen, but you might consider switching to a different
FS format, which doesn't have the same issues... Also, consider whether
qmail-scanner is suffering from this, or is this performance issue only
noticed when you do an ls on that folder ??
we
At 10:42 -0700 16-07-2005, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
okay, probably a dumb question, i excel at those!
i'm quarantining on average 1,000 messages per hour. no, this isn't
'stock' qmail-scanner, it's qmail-scanner-st, so most of what i'm
quarantining is spam. without regard to the arguments for
okay, probably a dumb question, i excel at those!
i'm quarantining on average 1,000 messages per hour. no, this isn't
'stock' qmail-scanner, it's qmail-scanner-st, so most of what i'm
quarantining is spam. without regard to the arguments for and against
quarantining spam, i can say that for *m
