>
> Just wanted to point out, this topic came out when site dns
> cache service started to fail due to excessive dnsbl queries. My
> slowdown was due to multiple timeouts and/or delay, probably
> related to "answering joe-job rbldns backscatter" -- that's the
> reason I was looking for early exit
To clarify -- here's how the current code orders rule evaluation:
- message metadata is extracted.
- header DNSBL tests are started.
- the decoded forms of the body text are extracted and cached.
- the URIs in the message body are extracted and cached.
- Iterates through each known priority l
>>> maybe if there was some way to establish a hierachy at startup
>>> which groups rule processing into nodes. some nodes finish
>>> quickly, some have dependencies, some are negative, etc.
Just wanted to point out, this topic came out when site dns
cache service started to fail due to excessiv
John D. Hardin writes:
Loren mentioned to me in a private email: "common subexpressions".
Whoops! Matt Kettler mentioned it to me, not Loren. Sorry!
I was going to mention that I didn't think that had been me.
Unless I was asleep when I wrote the reply. Which could have been the case.
:-)
On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 05:24:00PM +, Justin Mason wrote:
>
>Jim Maul writes:
>> Justin Mason wrote:
>> > John D. Hardin writes:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
>> >>>
>> Neither am I. Another t
John D. Hardin writes:
>
> Loren mentioned to me in a private email: "common subexpressions".
Whoops! Matt Kettler mentioned it to me, not Loren. Sorry!
--
John Hardin KA7OHZhttp://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
[EMAIL PROTECTED]FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Maul writes:
> Justin Mason wrote:
> > John D. Hardin writes:
> >> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
> >>>
> Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
> rules that actually
Justin Mason wrote:
John D. Hardin writes:
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
greates
John D. Hardin writes:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
> >
> > >Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
> > >rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
> > >great
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008, George Georgalis wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
>
> >Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
> >rules that actually hit and affect the score is rather small. The
> >greatest optimization would be to not test
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:41:58AM -0800, John D. Hardin wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Loren Wilton wrote:
>
>> I would not be terribly surprised to find out that on average
>> there was no appreciable difference in running all rules of all
>> types in priority order, over the current method;
>
>Nei
On Sat, 19 Jan 2008, Loren Wilton wrote:
> I would not be terribly surprised to find out that on average
> there was no appreciable difference in running all rules of all
> types in priority order, over the current method;
Neither am I. Another thing to consider is the fraction of defined
rules t
Loren Wilton wrote:
Well, it looks like I need to spend some time reading the code to
study exactly how SA runs rules, and see if it's doing something that
pollutes the memory cache, which would cause the over-sorting to not
matter..
As best I recall, it runs rules by type, and sorted by prio
Well, it looks like I need to spend some time reading the code to study
exactly how SA runs rules, and see if it's doing something that pollutes
the memory cache, which would cause the over-sorting to not matter..
As best I recall, it runs rules by type, and sorted by priority within type.
The
Matt Kettler wrote:
No, I'm saying it breaks the emails into pieces, then for the first
piece, it runs all the rules. Then it runs all the rules on the second
piece, and the third, and the fourth, etc.
Forcing score order causes it to run the whole message on one rule,
then then whole message
Robert - elists wrote:
You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
into the ground.
The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
parallel as it works its way through the body. this allows for good,
efficient use of memory cache.
By running rules
Theo Van Dinter writes:
> Yes and no. There aren't many negative scored rules, which could easily be
> put into a low priority to run first.
>
> The issue, which is where Matt was going I believe, is that the reason score
> based short circuiting was removed is that it's horribly slow to keep ch
From: "Robert - elists" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, 2008, January 18 21:14
You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
into the ground.
The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
parallel as it works its way through the body. this allo
>
> You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
> into the ground.
>
> The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
> parallel as it works its way through the body. this allows for good,
> efficient use of memory cache.
>
> By running rules in sc
Yes and no. There aren't many negative scored rules, which could easily be
put into a low priority to run first.
The issue, which is where Matt was going I believe, is that the reason score
based short circuiting was removed is that it's horribly slow to keep checking
the score after each rule ru
You can't run the rules in score-order without driving SA's performance
into the ground.
The key here is SA doesn't run tests sequentially, it runs them in
parallel as it works its way through the body. this allows for good,
efficient use of memory cache.
By running rules in score-order, you
Noticed today (again) how long some messages take to test. The
first thing that comes to mind is some dns is getting overloaded
answering joe-job rbldns backskatter, causing timeouts or slow
responce times.
Then I was thinking about how some tests are excluded because they
generate too much regex
22 matches
Mail list logo
