On Mon, 6 Sep 2010, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 14:55 -0500, Chris wrote:
On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 20:02 +0200, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote:
On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 08:42 -0500, Chris wrote:
I'm trying to figure out why I'm having ridiculous scan times such as
the above examples. Lower scan times such as in the 20 second range
are the exception rather than the rule. I'm running bind as a local
caching
I'm running spamd on an 866 MHz P3 box with 512MB RAM and 2GB swap with
a maximum of 5 spamd child processes.
You're probably _not_ running X and user apps on that box at the same
time, though...
--
John Hardin KA7OHZ http://www.impsec.org/~jhardin/
jhar...@impsec.org FALaholic #11174 pgpk -a jhar...@impsec.org
key: 0xB8732E79 -- 2D8C 34F4 6411 F507 136C AF76 D822 E6E6 B873 2E79
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
...every time I sit down in front of a Windows machine I feel as
if the computer is just a place for the manufacturers to put their
advertising. -- fwadling on Y! SCOX
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
11 days until the 223rd anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution
