Any one else notice...
fizz at BOMB.NET
Fri May 31 20:13:10 IST 2002
go back to 3.13-2 and you will notice a big diffrence. i didnt try any of
the 3.14x series.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Broersma" <ron at SPAWAR.NAVY.MIL>
To: <MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK>
Sent: Friday, May 31, 2002 2:29 PM
Subject: Re: Any one else notice...
> I've been watching this thread with interest as I've also noticed a
> recent slowdown. I didn't correlate it with one of the version updates
> because I've been changing a number of things and wasn't sure what
> caused the change in performance. I put many timing measurements in the
> code and the bulk of the delays are in spamassassin. Since I couldn't
> immediately find what was to blame, I've had to "throw hardware at the
> problem" to get some performance back.
> In the process, I've gathered some performance statistics on a number of
> machine configurations which may be useful to others, so I share them
> The machine configs are as follows: (all running Red Hat Linux 7.2 or
> A: Pentium II, 400 Mhz
> B: AMD Athlon, 900 Mhz
> C: Compaq - dual Pentium III, 550 Mhz each (smp kernel)
> D: AMD Athlon, dual 1400 Mhz (smp kernel)
> Under heavy load, this is the average performance that I see with the
> current version of mailscanner:
> A: 0.64 messages/sec
> B: 1.25 messages/sec
> C: 1.35 messages/sec
> D: 3.25 messages/sec
> Other configuration info: We use McAfee for virus checking, not Sophos.
> We use MAPS-RBL+, checked in mailscanner, not in spamassassin. Deliver
> In Background = yes. We process around 140,000 messages per day on this
> server. So, your performance may vary depending on your local
> configuration and the types of traffic through your server.
> There was a suggestion to change the max number of messages per pass
> from 100 to 15. I tried that and it made absolutely no difference in
> overall performance.
> If there is a strong concensus that the slowdown is due to some change
> related to a recent mailscanner upgrade, I can go back to 3.14-1 or
> 3.13-2 as a test and see how the numbers compare.
> Julian Field wrote:
> > I really want to track this down.
> > So if you fancy adding a few "print STDERR" commands to the code, if
> > you're
> > confident to do it, and can help work out where the timing difference
> > it would really help me.
> > There is a possible cause in the spam checking (caused by forking to
> > implement RBL timeouts), so make sure that "Spam Checks = no" for
> > starters.
> > We need to compare a system under real load, with the ability to switch
> > versions quite easily, to help solve this. All help would be much
> > appreciated!
> > Jules.
> > --
> > Julian Field Teaching Systems Manager
> > jkf at ecs.soton.ac.uk Dept. of Electronics & Computer Science
> > Tel. 023 8059 2817 University of Southampton
> > Southampton SO17 1BJ
More information about the MailScanner