Child Process vs batch size

[Pete Russell]

    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-1" character set. ]
    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]
    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

You can test this when your destination MTA is down and 2 or 3k message 
bank up- not sure how you can test this in real time without causing 
lots of delays for end users?

It doesnt reach more than 10 because MS looks every 5sec and processes 
what mail it finds providing its less than 30 messages, I assume max per 
batch is set to 30. In 5 sec your mail server doesnt accumulate more 
than 10 messages.

Performance when you get hammered wont change all that much (in my 
limeted experience) in low volume environments, like mine.


Ugo Bellavance wrote:
> Hi,
> 
>     I know that MailScanner gets its efficiency by processing messages 
> in batches (hence loading SA and AV engines only once per batch.  I was 
> looking at the average size of my batches, and it rarely goes over 10, 
> which is far from the standard max size of 30.  Would I get more 
> efficiency by lowering my # of child process?  Would I have the same 
> performance if I get struck by a spam storm?
> 
>     Open to opinions...
> 
> Regards,

------------------------ MailScanner list ------------------------
To unsubscribe, email jiscmail at jiscmail.ac.uk with the words:
'leave mailscanner' in the body of the email.
Before posting, read the Wiki (http://wiki.mailscanner.info/) and
the archives (http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/mailscanner.html).

Support MailScanner development - buy the book off the website!