MS Performance

[Andrea Cogliati]

Mike Kercher wrote:

> Agreed.  You might also consider moving your incoming to a tmpfs:
>
> /bin/mount -t tmpfs tmpfs /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming

[...]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [...] Martin Hepworth

[...]

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

>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

Mike and Martin,

Tried that but it doesn't seem to help. I've put another 128 MB of RAM
to a total
of 256MB. With or without tmpfs I can get a maximum of 1.72 scanned
messages
per second (103 msg/min). It seems to be a limit of the CPU and not of
the RAM.
Could someone confirm or confute this?

Andrea