SV: Tuning MailScanner

[Anders Andersson, IT]

> -----Ursprungligt meddelande-----
> Från: Randy Herban [mailto:RHerban at GRAMTEL.NET] 
> Skickat: den 23 maj 2003 15:20
> Till: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> Ämne: Re: Tuning MailScanner
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Sevy [mailto:tsevy at EPX.COM]
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 4:25 PM
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> > Subject: Re: Tuning MailScanner
> >
> >
> > Has anyone attempted or succeeded in implementing a load 
> balanced or 
> > HA
> >
> > cluster of SA servers?
> >
> 
> I kind of running a cluster of SA servers, but not 
> necessarily in a load balanced or HA way. The REAL nice thing 
> about handling incoming mail (which is all that mine are 
> doing, outbound mail is done seperately) if one mx host is 
> down, the next mx host will be attempted.  In a sense, the 
> "clustering" is already done for you.

Sounds like a normal behavior with multiple MX record....
or am I missing something....
> 
> I have done an HA cluster before, for different purposes.  I 
> was able to get it setup and all tests were successful, but 
> never actually had a chance to test in production (management 
> is paranoid).
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: mikea [mailto:mikea at MIKEA.ATH.CX]
> >
> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:10 PM
> >
> > To: MAILSCANNER at JISCMAIL.AC.UK
> >
> > Subject: Re: Tuning MailScanner
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 22, 2003 at 04:40:59PM -0400, Gerry Doris wrote:
> >
> > > I was reading the thread on running MailScanner with lower
> > numbers of
> >
> > > children and/or reducing the number of messages/batch to 
> be scanned.
> >
> > > However, I'm not sure I ever saw a concensus on what is best.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > It sounded like it was dependend on the number of messages being 
> > > received.
> >
> > > If there weren't enough messages coming in to load all the
> > instances
> > > of
> >
> > > MailScanner and only the first couple grabbed all the
> > messages then it
> > > was
> >
> > > a waste running the other instances.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > On the other hand, reducing the number of messages/batch would 
> > > distribute
> >
> > > the mail load across all instances of MailScanner and 
> would be more
> >
> > > efficient.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > If this is correct then the trick is to spread the mail
> > load across as
> >
> > > many instances of MailScanner as possible as long as you
> > don't run out
> > > of
> >
> > > server resources ie cpu load and memory.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Sendmail is very efficient. The real problems are the virus/spam 
> > > scanning
> >
> > > especially the RBL checking.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Is the above correct?
> >
> > That's pretty much my take on it.
> >
> > Of course, tuning, even within those very broad guidelines, will be
> >
> > very much a matter of tweaking one thing at a time, hoping that it
> >
> > was the right thing, and wondering how much of the apparent change
> >
> > comes from the tweaked parameter and how much from changes in the
> >
> > characteristics of the processed mail.
> >
> > I've been doing much the same thing with mainframe operating systems
> >
> > since 1977, and it's still a black art. I used to have a black robe
> >
> > with start, moons, etc., on it, which I reserved for 
> working on really
> >
> > bad problems, but my management disapproved. By the time I became
> >
> > management, the robe was gone. *sigh*
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mike Andrews
> >
> > mikea at mikea.ath.cx
> >
> > Tired old sysadmin since 1964
> >
>