ing that maybe a few
people would try this experiment.
Loren
- Original Message -
From: "Rosenbaum, Larry M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: RE: Poor performance with v3.2.0
From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED
>
> #! /usr/bin/perl
>
> use Google;
>
>
Matthew,
Sometimes it is hard for them to do if they are...
$ cd /pub
$ more beer
Then they would tend to
#! /usr/bin/perl
use Bathroom;
- rh
--
Abba Communications
Spokane, WA
www.abbacomm.net
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:27:38PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> What's this "use bytes" thing and where do you add it and what does it do?
#! /usr/bin/perl
use Google;
--
Matthew Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
UNIX and e-mail Systems Administrator, Network Services,
I.T. Services, University of Le
Justin Mason wrote:
> I have a theory that this would indeed cause major slowdowns, since
> every warning message has to be transmitted via UDP to the syslogd
> daemon, who then writes it synchronously to disk. That is a pretty
> slow operation, and causes I/O.
Just a guess: if strings being proc
On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:58:17PM -0700, Jerry Durand wrote:
> If you have Perl 5.8.8, you don't need to do this.
> When the SARE rules are updated, you can remove it.
Alternately you can stop using the rules that have the problem, which would be
easier.
--
Randomly Selected Tagline:
Hard where
At 12:27 PM 5/10/2007, Marc Perkel wrote:
What's this "use bytes" thing and where do you add it and what does it do?
It's a temporary workaround for the UTF-8 problem.
You add it after the "use warnings;" in the file message.pm.
Mine is located in:
/system/library/perl/extras/5.8.6/mail/spama
What's this "use bytes" thing and where do you add it and what does it do?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> If he is getting the UTF-8 error, this would indeed be odd, since he
> is
>> using perl-5.8.8 which supposedly handles those regexps whic
> -Original Message-
> From: Doc Schneider [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> If he is getting the UTF-8 error, this would indeed be odd, since he
is
> using perl-5.8.8 which supposedly handles those regexps which causes
the
> error.
>
> What SARE rules are you running Larry?
/usr/local/spam
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Justin Mason wrote:
> Rosenbaum, Larry M. writes:
>>> From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
>>>
>>> It would be interesting on some system experiencing this
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Did you have a massive volume of "Malformed UTF-8" warning messages in
the
> syslog output?
No, I upgraded Perl to v5.8.8, which got rid of the warning messages but
there was still a performance problem. Adding "use bytes" seems to have
fixed
Rosenbaum, Larry M. writes:
> > From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
> >
> > It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
> put
> > 'use bytes' back into SA and se
> From: Loren Wilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
>
> It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
put
> 'use bytes' back into SA and see what happens with the performance.
This
> wouldn't be any so
Well, here, P4 HT 3.06 GHz, 2 GB RAM (just added 1GB, wanted to test
performance) Debian Sarge pretty standard, Perl 5.8.8 from Backports,
SA 3.2.0 from source, re2c 0.12.0 from source, a bunch of SARE and
openprotect rules, several plugins, sa-compile delivered this:
# time sa-compile
real2
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Took 10 mins on my 2.8gh 512mb ram, with a bunch of sares rules.
You using .12.0 of re2c?
Yes.
I think most of the time is spent in the rule extraction steps and the
gcc compiles, and not in the re2c steps. (gcc is v3.4.6)
Yes, you are right
>
> Took 10 mins on my 2.8gh 512mb ram, with a bunch of sares rules.
>
> You using .12.0 of re2c?
Yes.
I think most of the time is spent in the rule extraction steps and the
gcc compiles, and not in the re2c steps. (gcc is v3.4.6)
> > Yes, you are right, after "use warnings;". I ran SA3.2 on
Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 20:09:42 schrieb Rosenbaum, Larry M.:
> I am getting really poor performance with v3.2.0 compared with v3.1.8.
So do we. I'm quite sorry to bring this subject up again, but bayes expire is
no explanation for us. We are running spamd 3.1x on a cluster of Debi
On Thu, 10 May 2007, Michael Scheidell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:10 AM
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Subject: RE: Poor performance with v3.2.0
sa-compile took 3 hours to run. (System is a
> -Original Message-
> From: Rosenbaum, Larry M. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 10:10 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Poor performance with v3.2.0
>
> sa-compile took 3 hours to run. (System is a SunFire v210
>
On Wed, 9 May 2007, Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Bayes auto expiries (taking to long and getting killed)? I think
that's a 600 second timeout.
We're not using auto-expiry. Bayes expiry is being done with a batch
job.
It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
put
>> Bayes auto expiries (taking to long and getting killed)? I think
>> that's a 600 second timeout.
We're not using auto-expiry. Bayes expiry is being done with a batch
job.
> It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to
put
> 'use bytes' back into SA and see what happe
> -Original Message-
> From: Theo Van Dinter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 10:01 PM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Poor performance with v3.2.0
>
>
> On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:45:32PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
>
Theo Van Dinter wrote:
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:45:32PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
I have to admit that I'm seeing higher server load levels since
upgrading to 3.2.0 from 3.1.8 as well. It was enough to make me wonder
if some ne features were slowing things down.
Last time I checke
It would be interesting on some system experiencing this slowdown to put
'use bytes' back into SA and see what happens with the performance. This
wouldn't be any sort of a solution, but it would be an interesting data
point.
Loren
I have to admit that I'm seeing higher server load lev
On Tue, May 08, 2007 at 06:45:32PM -0700, Marc Perkel wrote:
> I have to admit that I'm seeing higher server load levels since
> upgrading to 3.2.0 from 3.1.8 as well. It was enough to make me wonder
> if some ne features were slowing things down.
Last time I checked, which has been a while, gra
Jerry Durand wrote:
At 01:26 PM 5/8/2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Bayes auto expiries (taking to long and getting killed)? I think
that's a 600 second timeout.
A couple of months ago I was getting a lot of timeouts due to
auto-expire so I disabled it and set a cron job to stop the mail
At 01:26 PM 5/8/2007, Daryl C. W. O'Shea wrote:
Bayes auto expiries (taking to long and getting killed)? I think
that's a 600 second timeout.
A couple of months ago I was getting a lot of timeouts due to
auto-expire so I disabled it and set a cron job to stop the mail
server and force expir
Rosenbaum, Larry M. wrote:
Running SpamAssassin v3.2.0 on Solaris 9, perl v5.8.8.
I am getting really poor performance with v3.2.0 compared with v3.1.8.
Average scan time per message is doubled (or worse). I’m also seeing
messages like this in the log file (although not all the time
Running SpamAssassin v3.2.0 on Solaris 9, perl v5.8.8.
I am getting really poor performance with v3.2.0 compared with v3.1.8.
Average scan time per message is doubled (or worse). I'm also seeing
messages like this in the log file (although not all the time):
May 7 17:10:20 loca
29 matches
Mail list logo
