I did that - with DNSBL off there are no port 53 communications from SA
--
Jason Philbrook wrote:
>
> I would run a tcpdump on the ethernet interface while doing this, just
> in case there are network tests happening that you are not aware of.
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, po
I would run a tcpdump on the ethernet interface while doing this, just
in case there are network tests happening that you are not aware of.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA pro
This whole time I thought the subject line was "Paralyzing Spam
Assassin" and the original poster was having trouble with SA locking up.
Oops. ;-)
--
Dan Schaefer
Web Developer/Systems Analyst
Performance Administration Corp.
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 01:34:34PM +0300, Henrik K wrote:
>
> That reminds me, gotta test how SA runs on a Sun T5240 with 16 core "128
> cores"..
Well not that impressive for SA, price/speed wise..
T2+ 2x8x1.4Ghz, 144 msgs/sec @ 128 processes
AMD X4 4x3Ghz, 43 msgs/sec @ 4 processes
Note that th
Um, Linda.. I'm pretty positive Justin is Irish, not American.
Linda Walsh wrote:
> It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
> Americans all disturbed.
>
> Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
>
>
>
> Justin Mason wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:56 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
> language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
> 7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
It's not about words on their own -- it's about how they are be
Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
>> Henrik K wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> >> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
>> >> that
>> >> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegge
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 11:46:57AM +0200, Per Jessen wrote:
> Henrik K wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> >> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
> >> that
> >> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cor
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:04, Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
>> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
>> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 arc
Henrik K wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
>> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores
>> that
>> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores,
>> or
>> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 12:04:08AM -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
> were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
> HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
> many worklo
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 23:40 -0700, Linda Walsh wrote:
> It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
> Americans all disturbed.
I'm sure that is mostly it, Linda. They don't seem to 'get' it.
Two things I observe in this whole 'barracuda-gate' posting;
1. Being 'offen
Well -- it's not just the cores -- what was the usage of the cores that
were being used? were 3 out the 8 'pegged'? Are these 'real' cores, or
HT cores? In the Core2 and P4 archs, HT's actually slowed down a good
many workloads unless they were tightly constructed to work on the same
data in
May I point out, that while you may find the language crude -- it isn't
language that would violate FTC standards in that in used any of the
7 or so 'unmentionable words'...
People -- these standards of 'crude language' really need to be strongly
held 'in check' -- the US is 'supposed' to be th
* Linda Walsh :
> It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
> Americans all disturbed.
Sloppy language is sloppy language everywhere! I took offense in the message,
too and I am neither American nor am I from the UK.
But what annoys me the most is that the comments
It's an American thing. Things that are normal speech for UK blokes, get
Americans all disturbed.
Funny, used to be the other way around...but well...times change.
Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with
From: "poifgh"
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 19:47
I am sorry, I did not provide any statistics of the machine involved.
CPU - 8 cores with each core 2327 MHz
RAM - 16GB
Afair its has 7200RPM disk - 2TB.
One disk you might consider a striped array to get disk speed.
50 megabytes per second
From: "LuKreme"
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 12:37
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:33 PM, jdow wrote:
Given that profanity is the effort of a small mind to express itself
I have a feeling he's going to receive his third and final warning any
time now, Matt
Given that nothing that richard said is not an
From: "LuKreme"
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 12:30
On Jul 31, 2009, at 9:25 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain
about th
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 17:37 -0400, Glenn Sieb wrote:
> LuKreme said the following on 7/31/09 3:27 PM:
> >> Richard -- please watch your language. This is a public mailing
> >> list, and offensive language here is inappropriate.
> >
> > I dunno, 'gay' isn't that offensive.
> >
> >
>
> Gay is *not
I havent tried with sa-compile yet - I can give it a shot
--
Henrik K wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:41:47AM -0700, poifgh wrote:
>>
>> Henrik K wrote:
>> >
>> > Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
>> > Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset..
I am sorry, I did not provide any statistics of the machine involved.
CPU - 8 cores with each core 2327 MHz
RAM - 16GB
Afair its has 7200RPM disk - 2TB.
Yes, people were right in indicating AWL could be the problem. turning off
AWL results in near linear scaling of SA as we increase number of pro
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 10:41:47AM -0700, poifgh wrote:
>
> Henrik K wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
> > Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
> > used
> > and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds st
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> email me off list as I've just been
> banned for upsetting a sponsor LOL
>
Richard, this has nothing to do with Barracuda. They have no influence
over my opinions whatsoever. I don't work for Apache or Barracuda, or
any company sponsored by either.Neither Apac
LuKreme said the following on 7/31/09 3:27 PM:
>> Richard -- please watch your language. This is a public mailing
>> list, and offensive language here is inappropriate.
>
> I dunno, 'gay' isn't that offensive.
>
>
Gay is *not* a synonym for stupid.
I do take offense to the term being used in th
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 12:37, LuKreme wrote:
> On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:33 PM, jdow wrote:
>>
>> Given that profanity is the effort of a small mind to express itself
>> I have a feeling he's going to receive his third and final warning any
>> time now, Matt
>
> Given that nothing that richard said is
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:33 PM, jdow wrote:
Given that profanity is the effort of a small mind to express itself
I have a feeling he's going to receive his third and final warning any
time now, Matt
Given that nothing that richard said is not anything I've heard on,
say, prime time TV or... a co
From: "Matt Kettler"
Sent: Friday, 2009/July/31 04:26
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
...
Richard -- please watch your language. This is a public mailing
list,
On Jul 31, 2009, at 9:25 AM, John Hardin wrote:
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain
about them all you like, just avoid offensive language.
Rea
On Jul 31, 2009, at 2:53 AM, Justin Mason wrote:
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not
fill
their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI
and
supermicro. Jesus, try and process tha
On Jul 31, 2009, at 1:55 AM, poifgh wrote:
I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not
seeing
a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the
bottleneck? If yes, which particular file is being locked? If no,
what could
be the reason for this?
> In my tests - there was not MTA. The mails/spam were collected from
> some server in mbox format and fed to SA using --mbox switch. The
> size of msgs was not altered in any fashion - just the usual size of
> incoming spam/mails
If you're interested in testing/tuning spamassassin for heavy loads
OK - I can see what metrics you are trying to ascertain - I think. I'm
not sure that your test and real life are 'right'. For obvious reasons
I don't want to carry this one on via list - I would suggest you ask
Justin and I will be happy to give info on my local setup (this
assumes Justin can grab
In my tests - there was not MTA. The mails/spam were collected from some
server in mbox format and fed to SA using --mbox switch. The size of msgs
was not altered in any fashion - just the usual size of incoming spam/mails
There are no AV [you mean Anti Virus right?] running on the machine
Would
I'm assuming you run a tad more messages than I, but on a quad with a
failover I have never seen the failover kick in 4 years. This is not
disputing your observations, just noting mine.
I claim absolutely no knowledge about the core processing/stacking
though I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) t
Henrik K wrote:
>
> Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
> Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
> used
> and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core
> could top out the same. Anyone else have figure
c. r. wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
>> Why am I not seeing a linear increase in the throughput?
>> Is a file locking creating the bottleneck?
>
> Maybe the auto white list.
>
> --
>
I can try turning off AWL and get back here..
Thnx
--
View this mess
Bernd Petrovitsch wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> [...]
>> I ran freshly build SA with Bayes and DNSBL turned off. Why am I not
>> seeing
>> a linear increase in the throughput? Is a file locking creating the
> Because the bottleneck is not (only) the CPUs?
> Run `v
Henrik K wrote:
>
> Yeah, given that my 4x3Ghz box masscheck peaks at 22 msgs/sec, without
> Net/AWL/Bayes. But that's the 3.3 SVN ruleset.. wonder what version was
> used
> and any nondefault rules/settings? Certainly sounds strange that 1 core
> could top out the same. Anyone else have figure
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 08:25 -0700, John Hardin wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>
> > ... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
>
> Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
> them all you like, just avoid offensive
On Fri, 31 Jul 2009, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
... dropping in here and making jokes at such low hanging fruit.
Make all the jokes at Barracuda's expense that you like, complain about
them all you like, just avoid offensive language. Vitriol is more
impressive if you are creative enough
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 07:26 -0400, Matt Kettler wrote:
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
> >> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> >>
> >>> Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
>> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
>>> their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from th
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
[...]
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
> processes.
>
>
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 09:53 +0100, Justin Mason wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
> rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> > Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
> > their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
> > supermicro. Jesus, try
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32:42AM +0100, rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> > several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> > 8 co
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:32,
rich...@buzzhost.co.uk wrote:
> Imagine what Barracuda Networks could do with that if they did not fill
> their gay little boxes with hardware rubbish from the floors of MSI and
> supermicro. Jesus, try and process that many messages with a $30,000
> Barracuda and wat
On Thu, 2009-07-30 at 23:55 -0700, poifgh wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked different number of
> processes.
>
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:55:21PM -0700, poifgh wrote:
> Why am I not seeing a linear increase in the throughput?
> Is a file locking creating the bottleneck?
Maybe the auto white list.
--
hi -- turn off Bayes and AWL.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 07:55, poifgh wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I was measuring how quickly could SA [spam assassin] process spams when
> several SA processes are run in parallel over separate mbox files. I used a
> 8 core machine. Below are the numbers when I forked differen
50 matches
Mail list logo
