On Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:33:32 -0700
"jdow" wrote:
> > Potentially. If you've got memory free for it, it certainly
> > shouldn't perform worse.
>
> That might be a big if with a huge downside, Daryl.
>
> If the memory used by tmpfs forces SpamAssassin into memory swapping
> any speed advantages
From: "Daryl C. W. O'Shea"
Sent: Saturday, 2010/June/26 15:23
On 22/06/2010 10:52 AM, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
Yes it's safe.
And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Potentially. If you've got memory free f
On 22/06/2010 10:52 AM, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
> It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
Yes it's safe.
> And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
Potentially. If you've got memory free for it, it certainly shouldn't
perform worse.
Daryl
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:47:00 -0700
Gary Smith wrote:
> > I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and
> > awl
> > databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs more
> > RAM, CPU, and disk space, but scan times reduced dramatically. I'm
> > certain we wer
On 22.06.10 12:40, Henrique Fernandes wrote:
> My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in
> postfix.
>
> It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
> spamassassin runing.
>
> So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
I
it is taking about 3 seconds each email, i have pyzor and dcc, i am already
runing with mysql db.
After i get the statistis i will post here if tmpfs is faster or not! I made
some script that can't see anyway for losing email!
Thanks for all advise!
And sorry about my english
[]'sf.rique
On
> I don't know if it is safe. I suspect it will function normally, but I
> think you'd be in danger of losing a few messages on an unexpected
> reboot.
>
> I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and
> awl
> databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs
I don't know if it is safe. I suspect it will function normally, but I
think you'd be in danger of losing a few messages on an unexpected reboot.
I had a very dramatic performance improvement by switching bayes and awl
databases to MySQL instead of the default BerkeleyDB. It costs more
RAM,
pyzor and dcc
Só it might be it ?
If i am not using wont get in tmp ?
Right now i have 2 server with spamassassin, one i just put everything in
spamassassin in tmpfs and the other one i did not change anything
[]'sf.rique
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Gary Smith wrote:
>
>
> My ram dos
My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in postfix.
It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
spamassassin runing.
So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
This way, everything that spamassassin have to do with the
My ram dos not get full, i do not have so many process, i limit it in
postfix.
It reduces the chances of losing emails if i do not have many process of
spamassassin runing.
So is safe or not to use tmpfs for tempdir in spamassassin. ?
This way, everything that spamassassin have to do with the me
> It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
> And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
> Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
> basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamassasin is a
> virtual machine.
> An
2010/6/22 Henrique Fernandes
> It is safe to use spamassassin tmpdir on a tmpfs mounted system ?
>
> And if its safe it would have a better performance ?
>
> Here where i work we have big problems with the hard drives, because we
> basically are sharing virtual machines disk over nfs. and spamass
13 matches
Mail list logo
