Chris, Your priorities are wrong... Give the wife and kids the old hardare. :) It seems that AWL could also be to blame. Looking at some of the threads on performance and memory issues everyone seems to have AWL configured. When we ran 3.0.0 rc4 in development it seemed to work fine even with a load. These used bayes and SURBL but AWL. I didn't see any performance or real memory problems. Just my $0.02. Gary
________________________________ From: Chris Santerre [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 10/5/2004 1:48 PM To: 'scohen' Cc: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) Subject: RE: scan times up! >-----Original Message----- >From: scohen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2004 4:35 PM >To: Chris Santerre >Cc: Spamassassin-Talk (E-mail) >Subject: RE: scan times up! > > > > >On Tue, 5 Oct 2004, Chris Santerre wrote: > >> If anyone remembers this thread, I have more feedback. >> >> After disabling Bayes, AWL, and reducing the system to 4 >children, I now am >> running average scan times of 3.5 seconds. Much better! >> >> You devs are some seriously sexy coders! >> >> --Chris (Bayes?......poppycock!) > >I haven't been reading this list for a couple of weeks. Are you >seriously saying that in order to get good performance out >SA3.0 you have >to disable bayes and only run 4 children? With the complaints of poor >performance and increased memory usage is there any reason to >put this on >a production system? > Good grief NO! You read this wrong. I'm running it on a system that archeologists are interested in! I think the Boston Computer museum left me a message wanting to take the system away! Hell I'm running on a system that couldn't run a PC game from 2 years ago!! 3.0 caused my old iron to hit swap a lot at busy times. It's not SA's fault, but my budget of $10.99 that causes it :) --Chris (Seriously, my 4 yr old has a computer twice as powerful!)
