David B Funk wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010, Jean-Paul Natola wrote: > >> These are the stats for the week >> Total number of emails processed by the spam filter : 58249 >> Number of spams : 54479 ( 93.53%) >> Number of clean messages : 3770 ( 6.47%) >> Average message analysis time : 10.98 seconds >> Average spam analysis time : 6.76 seconds >> Average clean message analysis time : 23.35 seconds >> Average message score : 11.49 >> Average spam score : 20.10 >> Average clean message score : -13.76 >> Total spam volume : 677 Mbytes >> Total clean volume : 579 Mbytes > > That box is rather elderly and under-powered by modern standards. > New improved versions of SA and other apps are only going to get > -more- resource hungry.
Whilst that is true, todays SA (3.2.5) does very well handling about 6000msgs/day on my test system consisting of 4 x PII 400MHz with about 400MB RAM each. Each system runs max 5 spamd children, 3 for regular mail, 2 for honeypotted. > Let's run the numbers; > 1 week = 604800 seconds, 604800/58249 messages in a week > = 10.38 seconds per message. > Your average analysis time is 10.98 seconds. > > Thus you could almost run your system in single threaded mode > and be OK. two threads should be plenty, if the incoming arrivals > were evenly distributed. Should be no need for 40 children > ever, unless you're getting hit with a spam flood. The MTA queue will deal with a flood far better than spamd - my test system boxes regularly have queues of up to 300 emails, occasionally more, but they're mostly honeypotted and rarely last very long. > So you are either going to need to upgrade it or protect it by > reducing the number of concurrent messages being processed. +1 /Per Jessen, Zürich
