bdc replacement

[Dhawal Doshy]

Glenn Steen writes: 

> On 10/04/06, Dhawal Doshy <dhawal at netmagicsolutions.com> wrote:
>> Scott Silva writes: 
>>
>> > Glenn Steen spake the following on 4/10/2006 11:43 AM:
>> >> On 10/04/06, Dhawal Doshy <dhawal at netmagicsolutions.com> wrote:
>> >>> Hello List,
>> >>>
>> >>> BDC has lately become a cpu hog (or maybe i discovered recently). Am
>> >>
>> >> Really? How bad is it? Could you perhaps describe your setup a bit,
>> >> and perhaps some volume figures....?
>> >>
>> >>> wondering if there are any other alternatives in the command line virus
>> >>> scanning world that are free (as in beer) OR relatively cheap and
>> >>> consume much less resources.
>> >>>
>> >>> I've been using clamav and uvscan for quite some time (qmail-scanner
>> >>> days) and am more / less happy with their performance.. so any other
>> >>> suggestions would be welcome.
>> >>>
>> >>> Also a couple of questions for Julian:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1. Shouldn't "LogFile=/tmp/log.bdc.$$" in bitdefender-wrapper point to
>> >>> something like /var/spool/MailScanner/incoming/log.bdc.$$ and take
>> >>> advantage of the tmpfs partition?
>> >>>
>> >>> 2. Also i don't see any options being used in the bitdefender-wrapper
>> >>> script (similar to ExtraOptions in clamav-wrapper). Any particular
>> >>> reason why? Is it because MailScanner handles all the unpacking of
>> >>> attachments?
>> >>>
>> >>> thanks,
>> >>> - dhawal
>> >>
>> >> Well, there are some that are free for private/home/non-commercial use
>> >> .... like Antivir (or avira or whatever they like to be called....
>> >> http://www.free-av.com), AVG etc... (Avast is too, if you'd like to
>> >> try your hand at writing a wrapper (I don't think it is included in
>> >> the "supported set":-)). Panda isn't free, even though they say so,
>> >> since you need to pay for updates, and besides.... It's not that well
>> >> come together (although Ricks "new" wrapper makes it somewhat less of
>> >> a hog), so I wouldn't recommend that one ... But it is cheap, one has
>> >> to give it that... If one were a bit sarcastic, one might say it is
>> >> cheap in every sense of the word;).
>> >>
>> >> If I'd look at anything new, it'd probably be ine if the four: AVG,
>> >> Sophos, F-secure or F-prot.... with possibly nod32 as a remote
>> >> outsider:-).
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, I've been happy with the same setup you've got (clam, bdc and
>> >> mcafee), so would realy be interrested to hear what numbers you can
>> >> present.
>> >> Cheers
>> > I run the same 3 and haven't seen any performance problems. Are you running
>> > the gcc3x version, or do you still have the older (i think gcc29x) version?
>> > The older one isn't even offered on their website, although I have them somewhere. 
>>
>> Hey guys.. thanks for your replies.. it really isn't as bad as i've
>> projected but then the average cpu usage is 40% and bdc is responsible for
>> most of it. What i am worried about is the constant/consistent 35-40% usage. 
>>
>> All systems are:
>> Dell PE1850, Dual Xeons 2.8 Ghz (with HT enabled), 3GB RAM, 10K RPM SCSI
>> Disks Running 32bit centos 4.3 with the following: 
>>
>> MS 4.50.10/postfix 2.2.5
>> SA 3.11/pyzor/razor/dcc
>> uvscan v4.4.00/bdc 7.0.1-3.linux-gcc3x.i586/clam 0.88.1 
>>
>> The servers process about 70-80K mails each + lot more rejections at the mta
>> level. 
>>
>>  - dhawal
> 
> Well, doesn't sound like anything to get desparately anxious about:-).
> After all, *some* use of the cpus are OK:):)

well i am not really deperate/anxious.. i've run mission critical 
communication stuff on underpowered machines for too long to get jittery.. 
and for this project i've convinced management that 60% resource usage 
(sustained peak usage) warrants for an additional server. 

> (Joking aside) Do you see any other "danger signs"? Or is it "just"
> cpu? Any particular reason why you have HT on? Does it really give you
> any real (measurable) benefit?

Actually it's just cpu, i have enough free memory. With some more load each 
server can take 120000+ mails a day but i doubt bdc will let me do so, hence 
the concern. As for HT, it was enabled by default and back then i didn't see 
a reason to turn it off (but lately, i think otherwise) 

thanks,
 - dhawal 

> --
> -- Glenn
> email: glenn < dot > steen < at > gmail < dot > com
> work: glenn < dot > steen < at > ap1 < dot > se
> -- 
 

 

 --
**************** CAUTION - Disclaimer *****************
This e-mail contains PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION intended solely
for the use of the addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient, 
please
notify the sender by e-mail requesting deletion of the original message.
Further, you are not to copy, disclose, or distribute this e-mail or its
contents to any other person and any such actions are unlawful. NetMagic
Solutions Pvt. Ltd. has taken every reasonable precaution to minimize the 
risk
of virus infection & spam, but is not liable for any damage, you may sustain
as a result of any virus in this e-mail. You should carry out your own virus
checks before opening the e-mail or attachment. NetMagic Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
reserves the right to monitor and review the content of all messages sent to
or from this e-mail address. 

Messages sent to or from this e-mail address may be stored on the NetMagic
Solutions Pvt. Ltd.'s e-mail system.
***************** End of Disclaimer *******************