On Sun, 2009-02-15 at 02:05 +0100, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
> Lindsay, if you end up doing some benchmarking, please let us know. I
> wouldn't be surprised if you're actually the first one to do this across
> the Internet. :)
>
Just a thought. Since getting message sizes and counts on traffic
be
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 17:07 -0600, Michael Parker wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > Well that's something to consider. I had hoped when I subscribed to
> > this list to ask this question that I'd find people, possibly SA
> > developers on it, who had benchmarked the
On Feb 14, 2009, at 3:47 PM, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 15:04 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
I would bet on Bayes/userpref queries being more efficient than
the
spamc/spamd traffic.
I like that you are asking the question. But I hate to guess at
which
is better though. The
On Sat, 2009-02-14 at 15:04 -0600, Bob Proulx wrote:
> > I would bet on Bayes/userpref queries being more efficient than
> the
> > spamc/spamd traffic.
>
> I like that you are asking the question. But I hate to guess at which
> is better though. The weakest benchmark data point is better than
Kris Deugau wrote:
> John Hardin wrote:
>> The question is which is better, sending the message body (spamc <->
>> spamd traffic) or database queries (spamd <-> mysql traffic) over the
>> expensive link?
>
> I would bet on Bayes/userpref queries being more efficient than the
> spamc/spamd tra
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 18:11 -0500, Kris Deugau wrote:
> I would bet on Bayes/userpref queries being more efficient than the
> spamc/spamd traffic.
I think we have a consensus here :-) I didn't get any definitive
answers here but the folks who responded made me think about the problem
a little mo
John Hardin wrote:
If I may try:
The question is which is better, sending the message body (spamc <->
spamd traffic) or database queries (spamd <-> mysql traffic) over the
expensive link?
Yeah, after going back and forth I think I've finally got that.
I would bet on Bayes/userpref queries
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 16:51 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> Scenario 2: spamc on box A communicates with a _local_ spamd, which
> accesses local config files but uses a MySQL connection _over the
> network_ to box A to access the Bayes/userpref database.
Sorry, this should read:
Scenario 2: spa
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 17:26 -0500, Kris Deugau wrote:
> *nod* I don't know what kind of data size the Bayes SQL queries run,
> but it probably averages out somewhere close to a order of magnitude
> less than the full email.
>
> I think I misread your original email, and I'm still not sure I
>
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 14:27 -0800, John Hardin wrote:
> If I may try:
>
> The question is which is better, sending the message body (spamc <-> spamd
> traffic) or database queries (spamd <-> mysql traffic) over the expensive
> link?
Implicit point well make :-) I think I agree with you.
--
L
On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Kris Deugau wrote:
Although I appreciate your advice, my question here is not _whether_ I
should do the integration, but which of the two methods of integrating
the databases will be most efficient of bandwidth and other resources.
I'm getting confused again. What
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 15:24 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
Although I appreciate your advice, my question here is not _whether_ I
should do the integration, but which of the two methods of integrating
the databases will be most efficient of bandwidth and other resources.
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I think you misunderstand me. If spamc on machine A is invoked with -d
then spamc will use whatever databases and
configurations are in effect for spamd on machine B. This is what the
-d option is for. The "actual processing" is done by spamd, whichever
instance (machin
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 15:24 -0600, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> Although I appreciate your advice, my question here is not _whether_ I
> should do the integration, but which of the two methods of integrating
> the databases will be most efficient of bandwidth and other resources.
After thinking about
On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 15:21 -0500, Kris Deugau wrote:
> Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> > I have two servers. Currently they're both running instances of spamd
> > with separate mysql databases, however I'd like run both instances from
> > the same database on one of the servers. There are two ways to do
Lindsay Haisley wrote:
I have two servers. Currently they're both running instances of spamd
with separate mysql databases, however I'd like run both instances from
the same database on one of the servers. There are two ways to do this:
1. I can give the -d option to spamc where it's invoked i
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Lindsay Haisley wrote:
> I have two servers. Currently they're both running instances of spamd
> with separate mysql databases, however I'd like run both instances from
> the same database on one of the servers. There are two ways to do this:
>
> 1. I can give the -d optio
I have two servers. Currently they're both running instances of spamd
with separate mysql databases, however I'd like run both instances from
the same database on one of the servers. There are two ways to do this:
1. I can give the -d option to spamc where it's invoked in the mail
system, with t
18 matches
Mail list logo
