New speed benchmark

Julian Field MailScanner at
Sat Feb 4 11:17:59 GMT 2006

Res wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Julian Field wrote:
>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 10:36, Res wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, DAve wrote:
>>>> Julian Field wrote:
>>>>> I forgot to add the MTA is sendmail
>>>>> On 2 Feb 2006, at 14:59, Julian Field wrote:
>>>>>>> Old Signed: 02/02/06 at 14:59:40
>>>>>> I have just done a speed test.
>>>>>> Hardware: dual Opteron, 4Gb RAM, SCSI disk.
>>>>>> Software: RHEL4, MailScanner 4.50, SpamAssassin, DCC, Razor,
>>>>>> clamavmodule
>>>>>> MailScanner setup: default
>>>>>> Speed: 770,000 messages per day
>>>> What happens at 780,000 messages a day?
>>> and at what loads
>> Maintained about 10 which is what I would expect.
> 10? I hope to hell its on a 15 yo 5400 rpm ide
> thats only 8 msgs a second, we easily do more than that on dual xeon 2 
> gig ram with qmail and qmailscan and the load avgs constant 2-2.5
Not wanting to start a flame war, but does qmailscan do all the HTML 
analysis and phishing detection and all the extras you get with 
MailScanner? It's far from just being an av wrapper bolted to 
SpamAssassin. If I ran it as that, I would get far more messages per 
second too. I was running on a default setup, which has all features 
switched on. I was trying to produce a useful figure, not a marketing 
FUD benchmark.

A load average of 10 is totally acceptable, please read up on what it 
actually means, it's not an indicator of CPU load.


However, I agree with you on the qmail support for MailScanner. There is 
a company that does all that, I leave them to it as I have never much 
liked qmail anyway ;) ;)

Julian Field
Buy the MailScanner book at
Professional Support Services at
MailScanner thanks transtec Computers for their support

PGP footprint: EE81 D763 3DB0 0BFD E1DC 7222 11F6 5947 1415 B654

This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

More information about the MailScanner mailing list