FYI: dccproc vs dccifd
ugob at CAMO-ROUTE.COM
Thu Oct 20 16:52:35 IST 2005
[ 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. ]
Here is a discussion I has on the DCC mailing list with DCC's author:
> long time if there was a clear-cut advantage to run dccifd instead of
> dccproc on a mail server. In my case, MailScanner calls SpamAssassin,
> which in turn calls DCC. I usually use DCCifd on the servers I
> maintain, but I haven't done any real performance tests. I know that > a
> daemon like DCCifd is usually faster than a single process because it
> always in memory, but I've been told that since dccproc is called very
> often, the process of paging in/out shouldn't be very slow. Comments?
dccproc involves a fork() and exec() and then sending the message through
a pipe to the child process and receiving the answer.
dccifd need only send the message over UNIX domain socket to a daemon
and receiving the answer.
Dccproc must open, validate, and mmap() the whiteclnt and whiteclnt.dccw
files, while dccifd caches open files and mmap() regions.
Dccproc also creates creates a socket to talk to the DCC server while
dccifd caches open sockets.
I must admit that I've been too lazy to do obvious tests.
-> Please don't send a copy of your reply by e-mail. I read the list.
-> Please avoid top-posting, long signatures and HTML, and cut the
irrelevant parts in your replies.
------------------------ 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!
More information about the MailScanner