Re: spamd 90% cpu or higher -- was: RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin hogging 100% CPU time

2003-11-25 Thread Mike Jackson
> We just replaced our old qmail-scanner + spamd system with a fresh install, > and we had a concurrency incoming of about 150. The old single processor > PIII 800 handled this just fine. > > The new dual PIII 1Ghz would supposedly work much better. With > qmail-scanner 1.20 and spamd 2.60 it man

Re: [SAtalk] Spamassassin hogging 100% CPU time

2003-11-25 Thread Justin Mason
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dan Bongert writes: >We just rolled out SpamAssassin 2.60 as a spam filtering option to our >users (after using it on IT staff guinea pigs for about a month), and only >have about 20 people using it so far out of a possible 800 or so. In theory, >the

spamd 90% cpu or higher -- was: RE: [SAtalk] Spamassassin hogging 100% CPU time

2003-11-25 Thread Jeff Garvas
We just replaced our old qmail-scanner + spamd system with a fresh install, and we had a concurrency incoming of about 150. The old single processor PIII 800 handled this just fine. The new dual PIII 1Ghz would supposedly work much better. With qmail-scanner 1.20 and spamd 2.60 it managed to run