I am doing about 20k messages a day (inbound from the internet) on two Sun Netra T1's (1 gig ram, 440 mHz single cpu, mirrored 18 gig drives). For software I am using Sendmail, MimeDefang and SA. Works wonderfully.
Louis On Fri, 2003-05-23 at 07:47, Jack Gostl wrote: > > I'm currently running SA spamd with Exim and exiscan_acl. Everything is > > fine, and I'm more than happy. However, my system doesn't handle that > > much mail. Based on my positive experiences, I'm investigating > > installing SA on an system which handles >10K messages a day. > > > > I was wondering if anyone has run SA on a similarly loaded system. > > > > And, if so, what's the performance like. > > > > Several people have mentioned to me that, being perl based, SA won't > > scale particularly well. I've never had problems scaling perl apps in > > the past, so I didn't worry - until others started sticking their oar > > in. So any evidence/anecdotes to put my mind at ease would be greatly > > appreciated. > > Those people should finish reading before they make comments. > > You don't talk about the hardware, etc., so its hard to say, but 10K per > day doesn't sound too terrible. You will have to run spamc/spamd of > course, which pretty much kills the perl problem you mentioned. Straight > spamassassin will kill you. > > We run about half that on an RS/6000 J40. The machine is more than six > years old, an antique in this business and slow by current standards. Its > also our development system, which means loads of compiles and other > things going on as well as email stuff. We have only had two performance > problems. > > The first was when a burst of traffic came through and spamd generated so > many children it took down the box. I had to limit the number of children > that spamd generated with -m. That solved that problem. > > The second problem occured when one of the RBL servers went down and > spamassassin resolution times went through the roof. That's elapsed time, > not CPU resource time. Suddenly we had hundreds of copies of sendmail and > procmail running. Looking at the situation, the timeout on RBL response > was waaaayyyyy to long (30 seconds). We've set that down to 5. I'm also > investigating some of the sendmail (8.10.x and up) throttling parameters. > > So I'd say go for it. Worst case is you set up a server specifically to > service spamd. -- - -- --- ¤¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ ¤°`°Lightbridge, Inc ¤°`°67 South Bedford St. ¤°`°Burlington MA 01802 ¤°`°781.359.4795 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ¤°`°http://www.lightbridge.com ¤¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤øø¤º°`°º¤ ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: eBay Get office equipment for less on eBay! http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/711-11697-6916-5 _______________________________________________ Spamassassin-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spamassassin-talk
