Derrick 'dman' Hudson wrote: DdH> On Sun, Jun 09, 2002 at 11:06:32PM +0100, Sean Rima wrote: DdH> DdH> | Yeah the spam[c/d] setup. My average is around 15 seconds, well it is an DdH> | old p133 the slowest appears to be 93 seconds. I am a dialup user and DdH> | when I go online off peak for the first time, fetchmail can throw over a DdH> | 1000 emails at spam[c/d]. I also use DCC and have no performance DdH> | problems there. DdH> DdH> The real problem you have is not so much spamd's performance, but the DdH> fact that it sits idle 99% of the time, then gets slammed with 1K DdH> messages in a matter of seconds. Even with my Duron 750 and not much DdH> else happening, the box can effectively freeze (no UI response) with a DdH> load average of 30 if I hit it with 900+ messages almost DdH> instantaneously.
Try running spamd at nice -19 or something. That should help, particularly if your OS schedules IO as well as CPU. At least your UI should remain a little more responsive, assuming you have enough RAM and that swapping VM isn't the problem. And you can buy a buttload of RAM these days for $20. C _______________________________________________________________ Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference August 25-28 in Las Vegas - http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm?source=osdntextlink _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
