All,
> email builder wrote:
> >
> > >How much email are you processing ?
> >
> > Well, just the other day we had an average of 48 msgs/min (max 255/min)
> > get run through SA. Can't say today yet because can't run our stats
> > tools until the busy hours are over cuz SA is hogging the CPU. ;
> > > Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why
> has
> > > nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
> > > more memory?"
> >
> > I think because memory does not seem to be an issue for me. I have 1GB
> RAM
> > and each spamd process sits at a
Spamd1 - 4 handle an average of 1.5 million messages per day, 810 per
minute.
Each box is configured to a max child of 128, and usually hover around
70% cpu idle, and 500 megs of ram free.
Very impressive. I have a single spamd box, running 3.0.1, with four
3gHz Xeons and 4-gigs of memory. It's
We have a nice e-mail setup with 5 inbound mx boxes (Qmail +
QmailScanner + ClamD), 4 spamd boxes, 2 outbound smtp, 1 imap/pop
server, and a pq (problem queue) box that mx can re-route mail to if
there is a customer issue.
Every box is a Dual CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 2.40GHz (2399.33-MHz
686
> Out of addled curiosity (not pointing specifically at you David) why has
> nobody mentioned the traditional "SpamAssassin is slow" mantra, "Try
> more memory?"
I think because memory does not seem to be an issue for me. I have 1GB RAM
and each spamd process sits at around 34MB. I don't have a
Kurt,
> I've lost track of your original post, but I do have a quick question.
>
> From what little I do remember of your postings, I believe that you were
> running SA on FreeBSD.
Sorry, no, this is a Fedora Core 2 machine
> From reading several FreeBSD lists, HT is problematic, and often red
Sent: 2004 October, 28, Thursday 15:37
Subject: Re: spamd still burning CPU in 3.0.1
> Jdow, think about what you're saying - do you really expect us to believe
> that you could even boot redhat 9, let alone do anything useful, in 256 k
> of RAM? I was able to bring up a slackware ma
> 89 a minute! Wow! What else do you run on that machine? (Do you run your
> other email server software there or is it a dedicated SA box? Do you also
> run a virus scanner for example?)
Hiya,
It runs FreeBSD 4.8 (with SMP kernel of course) and sendmail + SA 3.0.1 -
that's it, nothing else
Jdow, think about what you're saying - do you really expect us to believe
that you could even boot redhat 9, let alone do anything useful, in 256 k
of RAM? I was able to bring up a slackware machine with 4 MB RAM, and even
run a web server (slowly), but that's about the practical limit, and you
cla
Redhat 9 does. It's rather slow. But it does get there. It's for two users
only. But we're both in the 1000+ emails a day class users.
{^_^}
- Original Message -
From: "einheit elf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> jdow said:
>
> > I normally run SpamAssassin (2.63) on a slow machine, a
> > 166M
> einheit elf wrote:
> > jdow said:
> >
> >
> >>I normally run SpamAssassin (2.63) on a slow machine, a
> >>166MHz Pentium with only 256k of ram.
> >
> >
> > Pray tell, what OS enables you to run SA with only a
> quarter Meg of RAM?
>
> ReallyTinyOS ?
>
ReallyBigROM?
einheit elf wrote:
jdow said:
I normally run SpamAssassin (2.63) on a slow machine, a
166MHz Pentium with only 256k of ram.
Pray tell, what OS enables you to run SA with only a quarter Meg of RAM?
ReallyTinyOS ?
jdow said:
> I normally run SpamAssassin (2.63) on a slow machine, a
> 166MHz Pentium with only 256k of ram.
Pray tell, what OS enables you to run SA with only a quarter Meg of RAM?
einheit
From: "David Brodbeck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT), email builder wrote
> > Thanks. We were thinking about a NFS server, but SA concerns seemed
> > more important. If both can coexist peacefully, this may be the
> > exact same solution that we use.
>
> It seems
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:43:16 -0700 (PDT), email builder wrote
> Thanks. We were thinking about a NFS server, but SA concerns seemed
> more important. If both can coexist peacefully, this may be the
> exact same solution that we use.
It seems like it'd be a good match. NFS is highly I/O intens
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 09:54:42AM -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
>
> You are correct and I apologize to the SA team. I cannot characterize the
> problem as a bug - SA 3.0 is just much slower and resource intensive than
> SA 2.64. If I understand you correctly you are just testing Bayes. Our
> product
To clarify - the first server handles 700 domains and the second 250. The
first is only handling virus and spam filtering for incoming email while
the second is doing that plus pop3 and outgoing mail.
The first is also SCSI which seems to help alot - especially for qmail. Oh,
also in both machi
email builder wrote:
>>I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
>>server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
>
>
> also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
> machine? dumb question? (two machines always are
Although we don't load balance it would be relatively easy to do if the
incoming mailserver was really having trouble. We would just duplicate the
machine using another mx record. With qmail, incoming SMTP concurrency
would reach our max and the first machine would stop accepting new
connection
You are correct and I apologize to the SA team. I cannot characterize the
problem as a bug - SA 3.0 is just much slower and resource intensive than
SA 2.64. If I understand you correctly you are just testing Bayes. Our
production testing involved using SA as a whole. And I again suggest that
SA
--- Gavin Cato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This is what I don't get. If you can handle an avg of 500/hr, which
> oh,
> > wait... that's per hour. Ah, OK. That's 8/min. I'm doing an avg of
> 48/min
> > (255/min max). But I swear someone else had a throughput higher than
> that
> > who
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:09:57AM -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
> >
> > We figure that we'd have to reduce the email load on each server by 50%
> in
> > order to use SA 3.0 and thereby need twice as many servers. However,
> we're
> > going to wait until the SA developers take the memory and load i
ernet, point your browser at http://www.perl.com/, the Perl Home Page.
Thanks!
> - RE
>
> -Original Message-
> From: email builder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 October, 2004 7:06 AM
> To: users@spamassassin.apache.org
> Subject: spamd still bu
On Thursday 28 October 2004 12:18 am, email builder wrote:
> > We have two production mailservers running SA spamd. The first handles
> > about 5,000 incoming emails per hour, does spam filtering with SA and
> > virus
>
> Can I ask you how you load balance between the two machines (obviously if
> o
> We have two production mailservers running SA spamd. The first handles
> about 5,000 incoming emails per hour, does spam filtering with SA and virus
Can I ask you how you load balance between the two machines (obviously if one
handles 5000/hr and the other 2,500, it's not straight round robin)
> This is what I don't get. If you can handle an avg of 500/hr, which oh,
> wait... that's per hour. Ah, OK. That's 8/min. I'm doing an avg of 48/min
> (255/min max). But I swear someone else had a throughput higher than that
> who was not having CPU issues.
>
> ANYONE? What kind of thro
On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 01:09:57AM -0400, Jeff Koch wrote:
>
> We figure that we'd have to reduce the email load on each server by 50% in
> order to use SA 3.0 and thereby need twice as many servers. However, we're
> going to wait until the SA developers take the memory and load issues
> seriou
We have two production mailservers running SA spamd. The first handles
about 5,000 incoming emails per hour, does spam filtering with SA and virus
filtering with qmailscanner and forwards the filtered mail to a server
handling the pop accounts. We're using SA 2.64 with Bayes, AWL, Razor and
abo
> >>I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
> >>server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
> >
> >
> > also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
> > machine? dumb question? (two machines always are faster th
email builder wrote:
I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
machine? dumb question? (two machines always are faster than o
> I'd recommend upgrading to a dual server or perhaps putting in a second
> server with round robin DNS (or if you can do it, a load balancer).
also, what do people think about a multiple cpu machine vs more than one
machine? dumb question? (two machines always are faster than one dual-cpu
mach
> email builder wrote:
> >>email builder wrote:
> >>How much email are you processing ?
> >
> >
> > Well, just the other day we had an average of 48 msgs/min (max 255/min)
> get
> > run
> > through SA. Can't say today yet because can't run our stats tools until
> the
> > busy hours are over cuz
email builder wrote:
email builder wrote:
How much email are you processing ?
Well, just the other day we had an average of 48 msgs/min (max 255/min) get
run
through SA. Can't say today yet because can't run our stats tools until the
busy hours are over cuz SA is hogging the CPU. ;)
Hi,
Your C
> email builder wrote:
> >>BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
> >
> >
> > But not as CPU intensive as I am seeing. According to others on this
> list, I
> > should not be seeing a mere five spamd children completely dominating a
> > 2.8GHz(HT) processor.
>
> How mu
Definitely not, I'm using SA 3.0.1 on a dual 1.13ghz P3 with 2gb RAM with
SCSI, processing a fair bit of mail.
I have 25 spamd children running, and the load is typically like this ;
> w
9:46AM up 9 days, 13:06, 1 user, load averages: 1.14, 1.46, 1.59
Cheers
Gav
On 28/10/04 9:13 AM, "emai
email builder wrote:
BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
But not as CPU intensive as I am seeing. According to others on this list, I
should not be seeing a mere five spamd children completely dominating a
2.8GHz(HT) processor.
How much email are you processing ?
Hav
> Does spamd burn up the CPU if you do not have the Bayes turned on?
> If not, then I humbly suggest to turn off the Bayes in SA and
> use bogofilter to handle the Bayes processing.
Unfortunately, with use_bayes set to zero, spamd children average probably
around 20% cpu and bounce regularly into
> BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
But not as CPU intensive as I am seeing. According to others on this list, I
should not be seeing a mere five spamd children completely dominating a
2.8GHz(HT) processor.
> Tim B writes:
> > email builder wrote:
> > > I hurried
--- Tim B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> email builder wrote:
>
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
> >
> > Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am
>
--- Tim B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> email builder wrote:
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
> >
> > Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am
> so
Does spamd burn up the CPU if you do not have the Bayes turned on?
If not, then I humbly suggest to turn off the Bayes in SA and
use bogofilter to handle the Bayes processing.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
BTW, SpamAssassin *is* CPU-intensive. It's designed that way ;)
- --j.
Tim B writes:
> email builder wrote:
> > I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
> > improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to b
email builder wrote:
I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am s at
a loss; tried everything I've read... spent days read
I hurried out and installed 3.0.1, thinking one of those memory/language
improvements mentioned in the release notes were going to be my savior...
Sadly, 3.0.1's spamd has the same CPU-intensive behavior here. I am s at
a loss; tried everything I've read... spent days reading... please, anyon
44 matches
Mail list logo
