New speed benchmark -- just virus scanning

[Res]

On Sat, 4 Feb 2006, 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?

maybe witha  high load, i never said i like qmailscan, it hate the #@%#@ 
thing :)
when dealing with some tnef stuff it leaves the extracted dirs and can 
hang that child
we are probably doing about 20 msgs a second for those figures I gave.
which Operton ? tho I do detest AMD :P prolly cause in early days they 
were shit and used to fail often, never had an intel die yet


>
>

-- 
Cheers
Res