On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:42:41 -0700, "Jeff Hrdy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>It does help. The architecture we will be recommending is for high-volume >environments and will have a stack of spam and antiV infront of it: > >Greylisting >Bayesian filter >RBL >DNS checks >ClamAV >etc. > >...all before SA gets ahold of it. > >Given that, and in light of your comments, what do you think of the following >basic specs as a starting point recommendation: >Dual core (any) >1GB RAM >Dedicated SATA drive > >Thanks, > >Jeff Hardy >SmarterTools, Inc. >1903 Parkside Lane, Suite 106 >Phoenix, Arizona 85027 >Toll Free: 877.357.6278 ex. 7012 >Local: 623.434.8050 ex. 7012 >FAX: 623.434.8453 > >---------------------------------------- > >From: Nigel Frankcom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:19 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Stand-alone SpamAssassin server specs > >On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:22:40 -0700, "Jeff Hrdy" >wrote: > >>Our product supports SpamAssassin and comes with the Windows version. >>Sometimes in high-volume environments we want to recommend SpamAssassin >>to run on its own box in Linux. In this configuration we want to suggest a >>server hardware >>setup--including processor (type and number), Ram, RAID array #, other. >> >>Maybe I missed it, but I could not find a recommended server config on the >>site. >>Does such a recommendation exist and/or does the user group have a >>suggestion? >>This info is for a white paper we will publish on our Web site. >> > >The key questions are just how much mail will you be dealing with, >what tests you wish to apply to incoming mail and is SA frontline or >are there other systems in place to thin down the load. > >I run SA on 3 XPC Shuttles with AMD Athlon64, 2 Gb RAM and 2 * 250 Gb >SATA HDD's. The systems originally ran with 1Gb RAM and an 80Gb SATA >without any issues. I use CentOS 4.4 with SA 3.1.7 and Clam. > >The original system cost a little over £300 to build and has greatly >exceeded expectations. > >To thin down the amount that SA has to deal with my Mail Server runs a >number of tests before mail ever reaches SA including RBL tests, AV >scanning, greylisting (for 4 hours for any IP that SA has detected as >sending spam), auto-banning (for 24 hours for any IP that has sent a >virus), local blacklisting and many other tweaks. The net result is >that SA only sees about 20 - 30% of the spam that hits - in my case >around 5,000 per day. > >Several of my colleagues use much older and lower spec'd machinery to >deal with much higher levels of mail (P3's with 512 RAM handling 20 - >150k mails a day). > >Personally I'd recommend the XPC's with CentOS as a relatively cheap, >low maintenance, relatively idiot proof system. > Sounds like a good start, if it starts to stumble throwing some more RAM at it will help. Though as I said earlier, my setup is overkill compared to some my colleagues use. The multiple SA is more for failover than load balancing, though it works that way just as well. My mail server will take an array of SA servers and use them in series (also Clam) which allows for updates & upgrades or general foul-ups like unplugging the wrong box (it's happened). One thing I didn't mention was using MySQL for bayes. So long as that is trained properly and you run a decent ruleset you should be OK. Kind regards Nigel
