On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:17:55 +0200 "Stefan" <ste...@localside.net> wrote:
> dccifd is the demonized version of dccproc. As it starts only one > time and then stays in the memory, it runs much faster. dccproc on > the other hand has to be loaded to memory every time it is called > (you process a mail). I doubt it has much to do with loading into memory since dccproc will be cached. The advantage this kind of thing is normally that it reduces initialization overheads. According to the ddcproc manpage, "Dccifd is significantly more efficient than dccproc", but is it still significant when compared to SpamAssassin? If you run dccproc manually it sometimes takes several seconds, but mostly it's virtually instantaneous, about half the time dig takes to do a dns lookup (which is 2 round-trips), so it appears to be dominated by network latency and server response time. Compare that with the ~7 seconds of heavy cpu-usage that spamd takes on the same machine,and dccifd begins to look like the sort of speed-up you get from emptying the ashtrays in a Humvee.
