[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
Uhm, I wonder were you got this information from...
It was quite some time ago... early Pentium 1, IIRC. I just hate
oversimplifications and "adding more RAM will certainly help" is
certainly wrong. I did mention several scenarios which might cause his
problems without being related to RAM in the first place.
But advising someone to NOT upgrade his memory over 256MB
on a serversystem that certainly needs MUCH more ram is
really strange in my opinion. Exim + SA are bound to kill
the machine in anything bigger then a homeserver-environment.
I didn't say "don't upgrade your memory". I said "analyze the problem
before investing money in memory". In my opinion advising someone to
invest money in a solution that might not be related to the problem at
all is the strange thing....
Especially if someone says "my server is P4 1.4GHz, 256 RAM and 40GB HD
and it is NEW". IMHO that's low-budget and quite a homeserver-setup.
And I doubt that his server "certainly" needs more memory. One of my
servers runs more software and still requires less memory than 256 MB
RAM. It's just 2000-2500 mails a day, but I could certainly handle much
more. His 216 users might cause more than 2500 mails/day, but it might
as well be less than 2000.
I'd say 1GB are absolutely minimum for such a server.
Without more information about the system-load I consider this to be a
wild guess. Very wild.
Usually you'll be runnnig 10 spamd processes (plus the spawning
father), which take up around 50MB memory per process. Add
So, if I ran 10 spamd processes in parallel as an average and were using
Spamassassin 3.1.0 which as default spawns as many processes as
currently required and if each mail took 10s to be processed... than I'd
process 1 mails/s or 86400 mails/day. If I had 250 users that would be
345 mails for each user....
Doesn't sound realistic to me...
Using 10 spamd does not sound right if you have a mere 250 users. I'd
guess less than five...
PS: Crossposting is bad, but doing a reply-to-all on a crosspost
is even worse.
I agree, but since there is no indication wheter Exim or SA (or
something else) is the cause, I saw no way to choose an appropriate list.
PPS: I'll keep it on the SA list, as SA is most likely the
reason for the slowness of the machine
I'd guess that he's scanning mail for invalid recipients or perhaps even
created an open relay. More information might prove me wrong and prove
you right.
--
CU,
Patrick.
