On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 19:36 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 08:16 +, Tom wrote:
> > (apologies if the html doesn't end up translating well!)
Damn, sorry. My attempt at pruning the large tables seriously fucked up
the formatting. :/
> > output from top, after running
On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 08:16 +, Tom wrote:
> Here's the stats from my cluster at the moment (8am) (these figures wll
> ramp up considerably!) (apologies if the html doesn't end up
> translating well!)
>
> Server
> Load Avg
> Processed/Min
> Busy Child Proc
> Proc Time
> 10.44.219.192
> 0.34
> 4
On Thu, 2011-11-17 at 15:55 +, Tom wrote:
> SPAMDOPTIONS="-d -L -i 10.44.219.208 -A 10.44.217.0/20 -m 40 -q -x -u
> spamd --min-children=40"
Do you really run a single spamd server, serving a /20 of potential SMTP
servers?
Also, you configured spamd to try hard and always keep exactly 40
chi
have you turned off RBLs and other network tests you dont need and disabled
any non-standard rules and plugins?
if you are using RBLS's have a a caching nameserver on the SA machine
itself (even if your 'local' DNS server is only a couple of milliseconds
away a caching namesserver on the box itsel
Greetings,
=== Information ==
Old Version: spamassassin-3.2.5-1.el5
New EL5 Version: spamassassin-3.3.1-2.el6.x86_64
New EL6 Version: spamassassin-3.3.1-2.el5.x86_64
SPAMDOPTIONS="-d -L -i 10.44.219.208 -A 10.44.217.0/20 -m 40 -q -x -u
spamd --min-children=40"
Other info Bayes
