Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal? NYTProf results TxRep.pm 1720440
vs 1651114
From: RW
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Nov 07 2017 03:44:50 GMT+0300 (AST
On 04.11.17 16:09, David Gessel wrote:
so days later, still chunking away, not making much progress.
1. did you enable bayes_learn_to_journal?
2. do you still run multiple sa-learn jobs in parallel?
3. do you still feed thousands of spam messages to it?
there is possibility of storing bayes da
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 00:59:12 +0300
David Gessel wrote:
> FreeBSD is currently installing TxRep.pm rev 1651114 from Jan 12
> 15:17:46 2015 (it is the only revision that has only whitespace
> differences, all leading padding, there are code differences between
> installed and 1650327 (previous) and 1
FreeBSD is currently installing TxRep.pm rev 1651114 from Jan 12 15:17:46 2015
(it is the only revision that has only whitespace differences, all leading
padding, there are code differences between installed and 1650327 (previous)
and 1678017 (next). The most recent is 1720440 from Dec 16 20:23
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: David Jones
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Sat Nov 04 2017 16:35:02 GMT+0300 (AST)
> On 11/04/2017 08:09 AM, Da
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 23:05:23 GMT+0300 (AST)
> dovecot's antspa
On 11/04/2017 08:09 AM, David Gessel wrote:
so days later, still chunking away, not making much progress.
If I kill the process (doesn't stop sa-learn, just kills current script), it
always returns
^Cplugin: eval failed: interrupted at /usr/local/bin/sa-learn line 511.
which is
0509 sub kil
times over various
versions and so may be slightly meaningful to something)
0021 # use bytes;
I'm not sufficiently perl savvy to have any idea whether that's useful to my
performance issues or not, but it an easy enough mod to try.
Any thoughts?
-David
Original Message ----
kbytes/sec
middle:102400 kbytes in 2.300709 sec =44508 kbytes/sec
inside:102400 kbytes in 3.192841 sec =32072 kbytes/sec
nothing amazing, but nothing unexpectedly bad either.
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance quest
sMigration
BTW, do you have normal file IO performance? Have you checked iotop and
iostats to see what kind of IOPs/Mbps you are getting on your filesystem
where the Bayes DB files are?
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds o
n.
-David
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Bill Cole
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Wed Nov 01 2017 06:57:55 GMT+0300 (AST)
> On 31 Oct 2017, at 7:27 (-0400), David
On Wed, 01 Nov 2017 15:11:01 +0300
ges...@blackrosetech.com wrote:
>
> It is when I run it on a large mailbox that it takes what seems like
> too long to complete (at least a week for 4,000 message mailbox).
> I've almost certainly configured something wrong/weird. The rate is
> way, way below
On 2017-11-01 14:31, RW wrote:
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:44:20 -
Kevin Golding wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:08 -, David Gessel
wrote:
> 1) sa-learn seems really, really slow. Slow enough that spam
> sometimes comes in faster. This seems far slower than the
> benchmark results sugge
On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 08:44:20 -
Kevin Golding wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:08 -, David Gessel
> wrote:
>
> > 1) sa-learn seems really, really slow. Slow enough that spam
> > sometimes comes in faster. This seems far slower than the
> > benchmark results suggest is within the ran
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 23:05:23 GMT+0300 (AST)
>>> On 31.10
On 31 Oct 2017, at 7:27 (-0400), David Gessel wrote:
bayes_file_mode 0777
Don't do that. I know the SiteWideBayes page recommends that, but it's
wrong. It's a bad idea to EVER make ANY file mode 0777 on any normal
system. Something mangled your Bayes DB. Anything running on that system
*cou
On 31.10.17 01:35, David Gessel wrote:
amavisd-new-2.11.0_2,1
I'm finding the command /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --showdots
/mail/blackrosetech.com/gessel/.Junk/{cur,new} is taking a while to
if you use amavis, you must train amavis' bayes database
(/var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/ here), no
Thank you very much for your help! A few answers inline.
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Oct
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Matus UHLAR - fantomas
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 13:21:10 GMT+0300 (AST)
>
> 1. spamc requi
at.
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Reindl Harald
To: David Gessel , users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 06:12:43 GMT+0300 (AST)
>
>
> Am 3
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:08 -, David Gessel
wrote:
1) sa-learn seems really, really slow. Slow enough that spam
sometimes comes in faster. This seems far slower than the
benchmark results suggest is within the range of normal. I'm sure
I'm doing something really wrong, but not sure
Original Message
Subject: Re: very basic SA-Learn performance question: is 90 seconds or so per
token really, really slow or roughly normal?
From: Kevin Golding
To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
Date: Tue Oct 31 2017 11:44:20 GMT+0300 (AST)
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017 22:35:08 -, David Gessel
wrote:
1) sa-learn seems really, really slow. Slow enough that spam sometimes
comes in faster. This seems far slower than the benchmark results
suggest is within the range of normal. I'm sure I'm doing something
really wrong, but not s
On 31.10.17 01:35, David Gessel wrote:
amavisd-new-2.11.0_2,1
I'm finding the command /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --showdots
/mail/blackrosetech.com/gessel/.Junk/{cur,new} is taking a while to
if you use amavis, you must train amavis' bayes database
(/var/lib/amavis/.spamassassin/ here), not
FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE FreeBSD 10.3-RELEASE #0 r322073: Sat Aug 5 01:44:09 PDT
2017
spamassassin-3.4.1_10
amavisd-new-2.11.0_2,1
I'm finding the command /usr/local/bin/sa-learn --spam --showdots
/mail/blackrosetech.com/gessel/.Junk/{cur,new} is taking a while to complete...
by a while I mean it
sting) and fast
disks.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Tom.
>
>
>
>
>
> Martin Hepworth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 27/09/2006 11:33
>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> cc: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject:Re: performance questi
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> As we have seen the amount of incoming mail increase by 25% in the last
> few months, our customer is willing to invest in an extra mail relay.
> I was thinking about a system with Sun's T1 chipset, (like the sunfire
> T1000), I'm thinking the t
Subject: Re: performance question
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like your opinion if our mailrelay is properly tuned:
>
> I have a mailrelay (sendmail / mimedefang / spamassassin with fuzzyocr,
> razor and dcc) running on a Sun V20Z with 6 GB Ram and 2
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hi,
>
> I would like your opinion if our mailrelay is properly tuned:
>
> I have a mailrelay (sendmail / mimedefang / spamassassin with fuzzyocr,
> razor and dcc) running on a Sun V20Z with 6 GB Ram and 2 AMD 1.8Ghz cpu's
> on Solaris 10.
> it curren
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I would like your opinion if our mailrelay is properly tuned:
I have a mailrelay (sendmail / mimedefang / spamassassin with fuzzyocr,
razor and dcc) running on a Sun V20Z with 6 GB Ram and 2 AMD 1.8Ghz cpu's
on Solaris 10.
it currently handles 95000 mails per da
Hi,
I would like your opinion if our mailrelay is properly tuned:
I have a mailrelay (sendmail / mimedefang / spamassassin with fuzzyocr,
razor and dcc) running on a Sun V20Z with 6 GB Ram and 2 AMD 1.8Ghz cpu's
on Solaris 10.
it currently handles 95000 mails per day (most of it spam ofcourse
31 matches
Mail list logo
