Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

Plus; parallel scans give a clue too. Next time compare one session vs. 2 or more sessions . If both times are nearly equal then it's not related to cpu usage or any other machine related bottleneck, coz probably SA waits for something -then timeout occurs? - On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 3:55 AM, John

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 17:55 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: > > > On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 14:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > >> On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: > >> > >>> I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as > >>> the above examples. Low

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 14:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote: On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are the exception rather than the r

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 17:00 -0500, Chris wrote: > On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 08:42 -0500, Chris wrote: > > I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as > > the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are > > the exception rather than the rule. I'm running

Re: Spamassassin not checking user provided RBLs

On 9/2/2010 8:24 AM, Chris Datfung wrote: On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Matt Kettler > wrote: Can you try again using a message, such as the sample-spam.txt that comes with the SA tarball. spamassassin < sample-spam.txt 2>&1 -D In particular,

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 14:33 -0700, John Hardin wrote: > On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: > > > I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as > > the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are > > the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

Hi, On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Chris wrote: > On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 08:42 -0500, Chris wrote: > I've started SA now with -D > > OPTIONS="-d -D -c -H -m 4  --max-conn-per-child=3 --min-children=1" > > While looking at my syslog I noticed the following: > > Sep  4 16:21:46 localhost spamd[157

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 08:42 -0500, Chris wrote: > I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as > the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are > the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind as a local caching > nameserver and it seems to be

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Chris wrote: I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind as a local caching nameserver and it seems to be working correctly.

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On Sat, 4 Sep 2010, Emin Akbulut wrote: If cpu usage is normal then it's related to DNS or online things, it maybe wait for communication... I think the -L parameter disables online checks. Just try without online checks. Also use -D for debug. Another posibility for delay would be waiting fo

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

If cpu usage is normal then it's related to DNS or online things, it maybe wait for communication... I think the -L parameter disables online checks. Just try without online checks. Also use -D for debug. On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Scheidell < michael.scheid...@secnap.com> wrote:

Re: scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

On 9/4/10 9:42 AM, Chris wrote: I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind as a local caching nameserver and it seems to be working correctly. I

scantime=249.2; scantime=175.0; scantime=190.9; scantime=68.9

I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range are the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind as a local caching nameserver and it seems to be working correctly. I've just seen a ham that has a scan