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 > production testing involved using SA as a whole. And I again suggest that > SA 3.0 be compared against previous versions (like 2.64) in a real world > production test. Maybe the answer is to publish a cheat sheet of new > features in 3.0 that need to be turned off in order to achieve the > throughput of 2.64. >
Actually, it tests most local rules (auto learning with just the BAYES_* rules is kind a boring if you know what I mean). I have done comparative tests against 2.6x and 3.0.x and at the time found 3.0.x some percentage slower but it was a percentage close to the number of extra rules 3.0.x was running at the time. Since then the number of active rules in 3.0 have been reduced. Sorry, it was a PITA to run the benchmark on 2.6x since it doesn't provide some of the features that 3.0 provides, so I doubt I would do it again. I think the majority of problems people are seeing can be solved with some tuning. Indeed, 3.0 is a slightly different animal than 2.6x was. It is better and more feature rich than any previous versions. With features come complexity and unfortunately the odd problem here or there. As developers we can not cover every possible setup, for that we must rely on users. I love to help when I can, especially if you're running SQL (prefs,bayes or awl). Feel free to hop on IRC and ask for help or ask here, or if you find a bug file a report. <plug> Come to ApacheCon. I'll be there and I won't speak for anyone else, but I bet you can find help/tips from folks there. Perhaps a BOF for SpamAssassin is in order. </plug> Michael
pgpLd2zj5rPvm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
