New speed benchmark -- just virus scanning

[DAve]

Julian Field wrote:
> Res wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, Julian Field wrote:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>
>>> On 3 Feb 2006, at 10:36, Res wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, DAve wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Julian Field wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> looks like i wont be trying to intergrate MS with our qmail servers, 
>> prolly a good idea since nobody has clear intructions on how to 
>> install with qmail anyway
>>
>> Still happy to use it on our sendmail boxes tho :)
> 
> As a comparison with qmailscan, I ran MailScanner with just the Virus 
> Scanning turned on, and all the spam checks and dangerous HTML checks 
> switched off.
> So just as a virus scanner it managed
> 
> Hardware: dual Opteron, 4Gb RAM, SCSI disk.
> Software: RHEL4, MailScanner 4.50
> MailScanner setup:  Virus  scanning only
> Speed: 4,700,000 messages per day
> = 55 messages per second
> 
> Can qmailscan beat that?
> 

We run qmail on all our servers except the gateways, which run MS and 
Sendmail, ClamAV/Bitdefender.

Each gateway is a PIII with 1gb ram and SATA raid 0. We currently 
process 40k messages a day on each gateway(rejecting 70k+ with rbl), and 
load is minimal, the servers are bored. I use SA only on domains we 
"scrub" and pass on to the clients exchange server. We have several 
qmail toasters behind the gateways running SA with per user prefs for 
all the accounts we host.

I do not believe any qmail solution such as qmailscan could keep up. 
Possibly qmail could keep up if you ran simscan, which is written in C. 
My experience testing solutions, was that any qmailqueue replacement 
written in Perl was nice for a business install, but unacceptable for an 
ISP install with large traffic levels.

This is not a flame, I love qmail (once I got my mind wrapped around it) 
and I've run sendmail/postfix/exim. Each has advantages. The bottleneck 
is the replacement of qmailqueue with Perl. IMO.

We looked at OpenProtect (?) but did not test it, only because we wanted 
Julians support and Julian didn't write it. If MailScanner someday 
supported qmail, we would switch from Sendmail. It seems to me the only 
difference is the queue and message structures. The rest of MS would not 
be affected?

Just my 2 cents.

DAve