> Hello, thanks for the post. Firstly, you are wrong about performance of my
> computer - I dont have supercomputer. I didnt run 10 000 000 messages
> through spamc/spamd. In fact the number is 100 000 000 and it means the max.
> size of message I run through spamc/spamd(notice that the number is b
Martin Gregorie-2 wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:30 -0700, monolit wrote:
>> I tried to measure performance of Spamassassin by using SDBM databse,
>> because of improvement performance. This site
>> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesBenchmarkResults
>> BayesBenchmarkResults claims
On Mon, 2011-08-01 at 12:30 -0700, monolit wrote:
> I tried to measure performance of Spamassassin by using SDBM databse,
> because of improvement performance. This site
> http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/BayesBenchmarkResults
> BayesBenchmarkResults claims, that by using SDBM database instead
On Mon, 1 Aug 2011 07:50:14 -0700 (PDT)
monolit939 wrote:
> 2) stop spamassassin
> 3) start spamassassin
> 4) start the script
> #! /bin/bash
> for i in $(ls /path/to/emails); do
> spamc -c -s 1000< $i
> done
>
> The results:
> real 84m55.472s
> user 0m17.145s
> sys 0m34.466s
>
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-08-01 16:50, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Axb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-08-01 9:52, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
>
> wrong!
>
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
>
> see "bayes_path"
>
> in yo
On 2011-08-01 16:50, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-08-01 9:52, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
wrong!
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
see "bayes_path"
in your case:
bayes_path /var/mail/.spamassassin/bayes
Hello,
firstly, I have to than
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-08-01 9:52, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Axb wrote:
>>>
>>> wrong!
>>>
>>> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
>>>
>>> see "bayes_path"
>>>
>>> in your case:
>>> bayes_path /var/mail/.spamassassin/bayes
>>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> firstly, I h
On 2011-08-01 9:52, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
wrong!
http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
see "bayes_path"
in your case:
bayes_path /var/mail/.spamassassin/bayes
Hello,
firstly, I have to thank for your advices. I added bayes_path
/var/mail/.spama
Axb wrote:
>
> wrong!
>
> http://spamassassin.apache.org/full/3.3.x/doc/Mail_SpamAssassin_Conf.txt
>
> see "bayes_path"
>
> in your case:
> bayes_path /var/mail/.spamassassin/bayes
>
Hello,
firstly, I have to thank for your advices. I added bayes_path
/var/mail/.spamassassin/bayes to loca
John Hardin wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, monolit939 wrote:
>
>> it will be problem, because when I use:
>> sa-learn --backup > /tmp/bayes_export
>> I get:
>> ls -l /tmp/bayes_export
>> -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 77 2011-07-29 15:37 /tmp/bayes_export # the file
>> has
>> just 77B
>>
>> BUT when
* Walter Hurry :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:44:14 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > * Walter Hurry :
> >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> >>
> >> > Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is
> >> > interesting, but as I understand the solution
* David F. Skoll :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:41:18 +0200
> Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> > That's ~230 msg/sec. Ever took it to 500 msg/sec?
>
> No, we lack the hardware to do that. The 230 msgs/sec rate was
> reached by a customer with a lot more money for hardware than we have. :)
Isn't that th
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:44:14 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> * Walter Hurry :
>> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>>
>> > Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is
>> > interesting, but as I understand the solution discussed addresses
>> > read
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:41:18 +0200
Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> That's where your product an SA differ, right? SA writes more to
> PostgreSQL e.g. it also stores Bayes tokens in PostgreSQL.
Right.
> That's ~230 msg/sec. Ever took it to 500 msg/sec?
No, we lack the hardware to do that. The 230
* Walter Hurry :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is interesting,
> > but as I understand the solution discussed addresses read performace. I
> > am interested in write performance. How far could you tak
* David F. Skoll :
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200
> Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
>
> > I am interested in write performance. How far could
> > you take it before PSQL topped out? Any special hardware in use?
>
> We're not writing very much to PostgreSQL. For each message, we
> write a small
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200
Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> I am interested in write performance. How far could
> you take it before PSQL topped out? Any special hardware in use?
We're not writing very much to PostgreSQL. For each message, we
write a small row containing the internal incide
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 21:56:03 +0200, Patrick Ben Koetter wrote:
> Using an asynchronous approach using different databases is interesting,
> but as I understand the solution discussed addresses read performace. I
> am interested in write performance. How far could you take it before
> PSQL topped o
* David F. Skoll :
> > Claiming SA "ignores large sites" because it doesn't have a complex
> > CDB backend is ridiculous.
>
> I'm not at all claiming SA ignores large sites. I'm claiming that people
> with *your* attitude ("Other 99.9% of user don't really care...") are
> ignoring large sites.
c
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:35:01 +0300
Henrik K wrote:
[...]
> Feel free to donate your code for SA and stop the pointless bashing.
Um? I'm not "bashing" SA. I think it's a fine piece of work. All I asked
is if anyone has made a CDB back-end for SA and I explained why I thought
it might be a goo
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 03:12:40PM -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:02:10 +0300
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > Let's be serious. Only people that really need it are the ones with a
> > custom high volume distributed spam appliance thing. Other 99.9% of
> > users don't really care if
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 22:02:10 +0300
Henrik K wrote:
> Let's be serious. Only people that really need it are the ones with a
> custom high volume distributed spam appliance thing. Other 99.9% of
> users don't really care if Bayes lookups take 100ms or whatever. It's
> peanuts compared to other proc
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 01:00:52PM -0400, David F. Skoll wrote:
>
> That's why I was wondering if anyone had looked at using CDB with SA's
> Bayes module.
Let's be serious. Only people that really need it are the ones with a custom
high volume distributed spam appliance thing. Other 99.9% of user
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:45:53 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> you need custom code to sync bayes? do expires? or just interesting
> entries in local.cf?
Ah, I should have mentioned we don't use SpamAssassin's Bayes module. We
use our own Bayes implementation.
That's why I was wondering if an
On 7/29/11 12:41 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:31:01 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
ok, but are you using cdb or postgresql for bayes?
cdb for the Bayes data; PostgreSQL for the journal table.
Regards,
David.
you need custom code to sync bayes? do expires? or just intere
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:31:01 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> ok, but are you using cdb or postgresql for bayes?
cdb for the Bayes data; PostgreSQL for the journal table.
Regards,
David.
On 7/29/11 12:20 PM, David F. Skoll wrote:
This INSERT-only
operation cannot block under PostgreSQL MVCC.
ok, but are you using cdb or postgresql for bayes?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
>*| *SECNAP Network Security Corporation
* Best Mobile Solutions Product
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:59:14 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> in mysql, we don't journal. what does that journaling time do to SA
> processing times? Id hate to think we go from 1 s/email processing
> time to 60 seconds or something while journal is locked.
Journalling *improves* training spee
On 7/29/11 11:47 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
CDB is*very* fast. If you journal your Bayes training and run the
journal every 5-10 minutes, CDB can easily keep up even with a 2GB
Bayes database.
in mysql, we don't journal. what does that journaling time do to SA
processing times? Id hate to thin
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:36:52 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> On 7/29/11 11:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
> > Has anyone investigated writing a CDB backend for SpamAssassin's
> > Bayes implementation? I'm guessing the need to rewrite the DB each
> > time makes it a bit complex.
> esp for people
On 7/29/11 11:33 AM, David F. Skoll wrote:
Has anyone investigated writing a CDB backend for SpamAssassin's Bayes
implementation? I'm guessing the need to rewrite the DB each time makes
it a bit complex.
esp for people with 2gb db's?
--
Michael Scheidell, CTO
o: 561-999-5000
d: 561-948-2259
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:26:57 -0400
Michael Scheidell wrote:
> if you use mysql.pm for other things (sql params, user's, etc), it
> still doesn't seem to make sense to use sdbm AND mysql.
We use PostgreSQL for a number of things, but we found that CDB is
much faster than all competitors for Bayes
Can this really be true?
On 7/29/11 5:28 AM, Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database can
its not just faster than DB, but faster the innodb/mysql.pm?
one of the things I like about innodb/mysql.pm i
On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, monolit939 wrote:
it will be problem, because when I use:
sa-learn --backup > /tmp/bayes_export
I get:
ls -l /tmp/bayes_export
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 77 2011-07-29 15:37 /tmp/bayes_export # the file has
just 77B
BUT when I use:
su mail -c 'sa-learn --backup > /tmp/bayes_exp
On 2011-07-29 16:16, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 15:50, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database
can
increa
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 15:50, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Axb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassi
On 2011-07-29 15:50, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database
can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB form
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>>
>> Axb wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin
database
can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley D
On 2011-07-29 15:03, monolit939 wrote:
Axb wrote:
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database
can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has s
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database
>> can
>> increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
>> format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with
Axb wrote:
>
> On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database
>> can
>> increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
>> format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with
On 2011-07-29 11:14, monolit939 wrote:
Hello,
I have found test which says the change of type of Spamassassin database can
increase performance almost three times (from Berkeley DB format to SDBM
format). I want to ask you if somebody has some experience with conversion
of standard Spamassassin
42 matches
Mail list logo
