MS Performance

[Steve Freegard]

Mike,

Quick question I've been meaning to ask on the list for a while:

What's a reasonable amount of memory to have on a MailScanner box to take
advantage of tmpfs??, and how much of a difference does it make?? - I've got
two Proliant DL360's, one with 512Mb RAM and the other with 1Gb RAM both
just running MailScanner, Sophos, Clam and MailWatch on RedHat 9.

Obviously 1Gb's probably enough, but what about the machine with 512Mb?? -
what happens if I end up with a queue full of largeish mails - will it just
swap like crazy and is there any chance of loosing mail by doing this if the
server runs out of memory??

Kind regards,
Steve

--
Steve Freegard
Systems Manager
Littlehampton Book Services Ltd.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Kercher [mailto:mike at CAMAROSS.NET]
Sent: 09 July 2003 14:44
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: MS Performance


Agreed.  You might also consider moving your incoming to a tmpfs:

/bin/mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming

yields

tmpfs on /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming type tmpfs (rw)

Do this only after adding RAM to your system though!

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: MailScanner mailing list [mailto:MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf
Of Martin Hepworth
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 5:28 AM
To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Re: MS Performance


Andrea

RAM, add more RAM. 128MB is kinda low, esp a you can get 512MB ram for < 50
UK pounds (~75 Euro I guess)

--
Martin


Andrea Cogliati wrote:

> Guys,
>
> we did several stress tests on our MS gateway and these are the
> results.
>
> System description:
>
> Single Intel Pentium 4 1.8 GHz
> 128 MB RAM
> 40 GB single IDE disk
> MS 4.22-5
> SpamAssassin 2.55
> AV: McAfee and ClamAV
>
> With this system we are able to process about 100 messages/minute.
>
> We had to lower the number of MS children processes to 3, as with the
> default of 5 we got a lot of swapping (each MS process uses about 20MB
> of
> memory) and
> performance severely degraded. Increasing the number of messages per
> process to 75 also improved the overall performance a little bit.
>
> Does this make any sense? Can I improve the performances tuning the
> system configuration?
>
> TIA,
>
> Andrea

--
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the sender and delete the message from your mailbox.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MailScanner (www.mailscanner.info) for the presence of computer viruses.